Appeal 2006-1160
Application 10/155,453
a send reference module for sending the reference signature
set to the point of sale system if the signature verification does not
verify the signature.
B. REJECTIONS
Claims 1-2, 10,17-18, 21-23, and 28-30 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 5,559,895 ("Lee") and U.S.
Patent No. 6,149,056 ("Stinson"). Claims 3-9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 24, 27, 31, and
33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lee; Stinson;
and U.S. Patent No. 6,220,515 ("Bello"). Claims 12, 25, 26, and 32 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lee; Stinson; Bello; and
U.S. Patent No. 6,290,129 ("Momose").
II. ISSUE
Rather than reiterate the positions of parties in toto, we focus on the
issue therebetween. The Examiner admits, "Lee does not specifically
disclose a send reference module for sending the reference signature set to
the point of sale system if the signature verification does not verify the
signature." (Answer 4.)
Therefore, the Examiner present[s] Stinson, who specifically
discloses that "when the processor 300 is unable to verify the
customer's identity, or is unauthorized to cash the customer's
check automatically, the process may transmit information
about the customer . . . personnel at the CSC . . . would then
attempt to verify the customer's identity and authorize cashing
of the customer's check" (Stinson, col[.] 6, lines 19-27).
(Id. 9.) The Appellant argues that in the latter reference "the information is
being transmitted to the centralized service center and not a point of sale
system." (Br. 14.) Therefore, the issue is whether Stinson would have
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013