Appeal 2006-3331
Application 10/829,797
Tedesco that the telephone be used to transmit check information and ‘access’
information to an independent third party service provider.” The Examiner found
that “Tedesco clearly teaches use of an integrated voice system (Telephone) to
communicate check data and identification data to the central system for
verification” (Answer 13, citing Tedesco, Fig. 5, col. 4, ll. 12-22, col. 6, ll. 18-22,
and col. 8, lines 37-43). We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Tedesco discloses a method in which an account holder may use an
automated voice-response unit to request a reserve amount of funds for payment
with a check (Finding of Fact 20). The account holder uses the voice-response unit
to send check data, including an account identifier, to a bank device (Finding of
Fact 21). The account holder also uses the voice-response unit to send an
authorization identifier to the bank device to verify that the account holder is
authorized to reserve a check (Finding of Fact 22). The bank device determines
whether the authorization identifier corresponds to at least one predetermined
authorization identifier of the financial account, such as may be stored in the
account database (Finding of Fact 23). As such, Tedesco clearly teaches
transmitting check information (check data including an account identifier) and
access information (authorization identifier) to a system for verification (Finding
of Fact 24). It would have been obvious to use a voice-response unit, particularly
in light of a similar teaching in Abecassis (Finding of Fact 14), over the phone line
of McNeal (Finding of Fact 8) for transmitting check and access information.
The Appellants have failed to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
determination of obviousness of the claimed invention. As such, we sustain the
23
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013