Appeal No. 2004-0786
Application No. 08/935,116 Page 21
integrated with the payment voucher processing apparatus 10
(underlining added). From the disclosure that the payment
voucher processing apparatus may either be remote from the cash
register or integrated with the cash register, we find that an
artisan would have been motivated to integrate the check
verification terminal of Creekmore integral with the point-of-
sale terminal, permitting the check approval, based on prior
transactions of a customer including the dollar amounts of checks
previously presented, to be sent to the point-of-sale terminal.
Accordingly, although we consider Off and Tai to be cumulative to
the teachings of Creekmore and Bigari, we find that the teachings
of Creekmore and Bigari suggest the limitations of claim 17.
We are not persuaded by appellants’ assertion (brief, page
30) that the portion of Bigari relied upon by the examiner has
nothing to do with prior purchase transactions, as this feature
is taught by Creekmore, as discussed, supra.
Nor are we persuaded by appellants' assertion (brief, page
32 and supp. reply brief, page 4) that the prior art does not
suggest the last limitation of claim 17 which recites “‘wherein
said customer information response signal depends upon data
stored in said database indicating dollar amount of at least one
prior purchase associated with said unique customer
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007