Appeal No. 2006-0395
Application No. 10/116,735
We have reviewed the evidence before us, including the disclosure of the Moderi
reference and the arguments of appellants and the examiner and we conclude from
such a review that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation
with regard to independent claims 1, 16, and 21.
Among other things, the instant claims require a set of instructions executable by
the POS devices to reconfigure the POS devices to enable or to facilitate access to a
“transaction system.” The examiner’s rationale would appear to ascribe the teaching of
such a “transaction system” in Moderi to the actual purchase by a customer. There is a
“transaction” when using the Moderi system in that a customer orders, for example, fries
and a soda, and the cashier punches the appropriate keys on the POS device (keys
which have been re-programmed) to arrive at the total amount owed by the customer.
The customer pays the amount shown on the POS device and the customer receives
the food products purchased. However, we do not view such a “transaction” as the
claimed “transaction system” that is “accessible” by the POS device.
The set of instructions in Moderi re-programs the keys of the POS device, but
such set of instructions does not enable or facilitate access to at least a first transaction
system, as claimed. To speak of “access” to a transaction system implies that there is
some physical or structural system, or network, available to be accessed. The general
business “transaction” of a customer purchasing food products and paying the amount
shown on a POS device (the amount being calculated via the appropriate entry on the
re-programmed keys of the POS device) is not a physical or structural system or
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007