8
Appeal No. 2005-0748
Application No. 09/190,727
independently of any input from the first or second consumer” and “transmitting the
anonymous data to at least one merchant”, the examiner’s rejection of claim 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Goldhaber in view of O’Neil is reversed.
Concerning claim 23, we note that appellants have indicated on page 3 of their
brief that dependent claim 23 is grouped to stand or fall with claim 22. In rejecting claim
23, the examiner has utilized Low as a tertiary reference to address anonymizing credit
card numbers. Low generally discloses the processing of anonymous credit card
transactions, where each party to the transaction can only read the information
necessary for their part of the transaction. Like O’Neil, Low does not meet the limitations
of claim 22 discussed above with respect to Goldhaber. Thus, given our disposition of
claim 22 above, it follows that the examiner’s rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Goldhaber in view of O’Neil and further in view of Low is also
reversed.
Regarding claim 24, we note that appellants have indicated on page 3 of their
brief that dependent claim 24 is grouped to stand or fall with claim 22. Thus, given our
disposition of claim 22 above, it follows that the examiner’s rejection of claim 24 under 35
U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Goldhaber in view of O’Neil is also reversed.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007