Appeal No. 2004-0786
Application No. 08/935,116 Page 22
identification,” because in Creekmore, verification of the check
will depend on data stored in the database which indicates the
dollar amount of checks given in the past, and whether any money
is due the merchant from checks that have been dishonored. We
add that in Creekmore, the approval of the check will include a
signal to the terminal in response to the request for approval.
Nor are we persuaded by appellants' assertion (supp. reply
brief, page 4) that Bigari does not teach or suggest “‘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
identification,” as this feature is disclosed by Creekmore, where
the database stores the dollar amounts of checks presented at
prior transactions by customers.
From all of the above, we find that the teachings of
Creekmore and Bigari establish a prima facie case of obviousness
of claim 17, which has not been successfully rebutted by
appellants. The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Creekmore in view of Off, Tai and
Bigari is affirmed. As dependent claims 18-21 have not been
separately argued, they fall with independent claim 17.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007