Appeal 2006-3331
Application 10/829,797
3. Claims 3, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over McNeal, Abecassis, and Sunderji.
4. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McNeal, Abecassis, Sunderji, and Braun.
5. Claims 4, 5, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over McNeal, Abecassis, and Tedesco.
6. Claims 6 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over McNeal, Abecassis, and Dahl.
7. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McNeal, Abecassis, and Walker.
8. Claims 8 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over McNeal, Abecassis, and Creekmore.
9. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McNeal, Braun, Tedesco, and Abecassis.
ISSUES
The issues before us are:
(1) whether the Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in determining
that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would
have been led, in view of the prior art, to a method and apparatus for preventing
check fraud that transmits checking account information and personal
found to be without consequence in this case.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013