Appeal No. 2004-0297
Application No. 09/265,451
institution system that occurs while electronic communication
between the universal electronic transaction card and the point
of sale transaction system is in effect. The appellant’s
contention that the rejection of these claims is unsound because
Tamada and the other applied references do not disclose these
sequences is not persuasive. The examiner’s position that the
references imply either sequence in order to complete the
electronic transactions suggested by Tamada and Hale is eminently
reasonable on its face. Therefore, we shall sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 69 and 70 as being
unpatentable over Tamada in view of Danielson and Hale.
Claim 80
Claim 80 depends from claim 67 and requires the transaction
records to comprise a receipt. For the reasons discussed above
in connection with claim 48, 67 and 77, we shall sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 80 as being
unpatentable over Tamada in view of Danielson and Hale.
Claims 50 through 52, 55 through 57, 59 through 62, 72, 74
through 76 and 82
We shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of dependent claims 50 through 52, 55 through 57, 59 through 62,
72, 74 through 76 and 82 as being unpatentable over Tamada in
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007