Appeal No. 2004-0297
Application No. 09/265,451
Claim 81
Claim 81 depends from claim 71 and requires at least one of
the transaction records to comprise a receipt. For the reasons
discussed above in connection with claim 77, we shall sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 81 as being
unpatentable over Tamada in view of Danielson and Hale.
Claim 58
Claim 58 is an independent claim which recites a method of
using a pocket-sized device of the sort at issue. The appellant
contends that the rejection thereof is unsound because the
applied references, and particularly Tamada, do not meet the
limitation requiring the step of sending and receiving
information including transaction information including at least
one transaction record between the device and service
institutions. For the reasons discussed above in connection with
claim 48, this argument is not persuasive. Hence, we shall
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 58 as
being unpatentable over Tamada in view of Danielson and Hale.
Claim 79
Claim 79 depends from claim 58 and requires the transaction
record to comprise a receipt. For the reasons discussed above in
connection with claim 77, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007