Appeal No. 2004-0786
Application No. 08/935,116 Page 24
We turn next to the rejection of independent claim 27. At
the outset, we make referance to our findings, supra, with
respect to Creekmore and Bigari. Appellants assert (brief, page
32 and 33) that Bigari does not teach the last limitation of
claim 27 which recites “‘circuitry responsive to the entry of
said unique customer identification and said transaction data at
said terminal for updating transaction data and a dollar amount
of purchases associated with said unique customer identification
in said customer database.” However, appellants provide no
specific arguments to support their position. We observe that
the last limitation of independent claim 27 is met by the
teachings of Creekmore and Bigari because in Creekmore, entry of
a current transaction paid for by check, along with the dollar
amount of the check, after entering the customer's unique
(checking account) number, reads on updating transaction data
(the fact that a check was cashed that day to pay for a
transaction) and a dollar amount of purchases (the dollar amount
of the check which is entered into the system). Accordingly, the
rejection of independent claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed. As dependent claims 28 and 29 fall with claim 27, the
rejection of claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007