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. 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013