Appeal No. 2005-1540
Application No. 09/887,626
page 6) that since the energy provider performs verification,
there is no need for a verification code. We agree.
Third, appellants state (Brief, page 6) that the
verification in Glorioso is not manual, nor does it suggest
manual verification. We agree. However, the examiner admitted
that Glorioso did not teach manual verification, and, therefore,
relied upon Von Kohorn and Hunter for such.
Appellants assert (Brief, page 7) that the examiner
improperly combined Von Kohorn with Glorioso. Specifically,
appellants argue (Brief, page 9) that, Von Kohorn deals with
redeeming tokens and uses verification data to determine if a
token is valid and whether particular rules were followed. Von
Kohorn does not disclose memory programmed with verification
instructions to generate a verification code to be used to
manually verify whether a request was followed. We agree.
Further, appellants contend (Brief, page 13) that there is no
motivation to combine the references. Again, we agree.
Regarding Hunter, appellants (Reply Brief, page 2) recognize
that Hunter requires manual verification of meter readings.
However, appellants argue (Reply Brief, page 3) that "[t]he
manual verification and communication of Hunter would not only
not work in Glorioso, but it would destroy the very purpose of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007