Appeal 2006-1160
Application 10/155,453
We cannot find that the processor sends data, let alone a set of
reference signatures, however, to the POS unit 100 when the customer's
identity cannot be verified. To the contrary, "[w]hen the processor 300 is
unable to verify the customer's identity, or is unauthorized to cash the
customer's check automatically, the processor may transmit information
about the customer and the customer's check to a remotely-located
centralized services center ('CSC') through the public telephone network (see
FIG. 4)." (Stinson , col. 6, ll. 19-24.) Because Stinson's POS unit 100
transmits information to the remotely-located CSC, we agree with the
Appellant that "the direction of information transmission is in the completely
opposite direction to the direction of information transmission expressly
recited in claim 1," (Br. 14), and in claim 10.
The Examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of
Bello or Momose cures the aforementioned deficiency of Lee and Stinson.
Absent a teaching or suggestion of the customer's identity, we are
unpersuaded of a prima facie case of obviousness.
V. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1
and 10 and the rejections of claims 2-9, 11-14, and 16-18, which depend
therefrom.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013