Appeal 2006-3331
Application 10/829,797
identification access information for many banks, so as to provide a single resource
to the retailer for check verification services. That is exactly what Abecassis
describes, and we find that it is not a patentable step to bridge the gap between the
use of McNeal’s main system 12 and the use of a universal third party service
provider.
The Examiner further relied on Braun to teach that initial PIN assignment
may be by the financial institution (Answer 3). We do not see where any of the
independent claims require the financial institution to make the initial PIN
assignment. Claims 1 and 15 recite a method for preventing check fraud including
“establishing personal identification access information for a checking account.”
The claim is not specific as to what entity establishes this information, and as we
found supra, the personal identification access information is not necessarily a
PIN. Claim 18 is directed to an apparatus and does not contain any limitation that
relates to initial PIN assignment. Claim 24, likewise, recites a method including
“associating a confidential personal identification number with checking account
information.” This limitation of claim 24 does not recite what entity establishes
the confidential personal identification number.
The Appellant argues that claims 2, 17, and 19 are patentable over McNeal
and Abecassis and further argues that claim 24 is patentable over McNeal, Braun,
Tedesco, and Abecassis because neither McNeal nor Abecassis teaches or suggests
that the personal identification access information is a personal identification
number (Appeal Br. 9). We disagree.
20
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013