Appeal No. 2006-0518
Application No. 10/358,615
With respect to claim 11, in addition to the motivation
argument considered above, appellants argue that the combination
fails to teach processing the transaction as an electronic debit
when the status is eligible, and otherwise, processing the
transaction as a paper check as claimed [brief, pages 7-8]. The
examiner responds that sending the check transaction to a host in
Templeton teaches that money is electronically debited throughout
the check transaction process [answer, page 27]. Appellants
respond that Templeton does not discuss the specific approach to
determining eligibility status and processing the transaction
[reply brief, page 2].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
Although Templeton teaches a scoring algorithm to determine
whether a check should be accepted or not, the examiner has not
addressed the eligibility rules of claim 11 which relate to
whether the check is treated as a debit card or as a paper check.
We have found nothing in Templeton or Funk, and the examiner has
not pointed to anything in these references, which relates to the
claimed feature of determining eligibility rules for processing a
check as a debit transaction or as a paper check based on these
eligibility rules.
With respect to claim 21, in addition to the motivation
argument considered above, appellants argue that the combination
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007