Appeal 2007-1554
Application 10/844,387
the digital receipt to the receipt generating computer 98 using the merchant’s key
(Robinson, col. 5, ll. 46-50) to retrieve the transaction data, but cannot to alter it.
Thus, Appellants’ assertion by implication that the limitation of "details in the
transaction record are protected from modification by the parties" (as recited in
claim 34) would prevent viewing by the customer appears to be wrong. Claim 34
says nothing of the record being prohibited from being viewed by any of the
parties which is what occurs in Robinson.
Appellants argue claims 40-41 are allowable because “[n]either ROBINSON
nor GINTER teaches the use of XML or XSLT to create a digital receipt for
‘postmarking’ as per claim 40, nor the combination of ‘transaction records and a
time-stamped hash... into an XML document… protected through the use of
standard PKI and the public key of a verification application’ as per claim 41”
(Br. 13). We reject these arguments and agree with the Examiner noting first that
nothing novel or unobviousness can be drawn from the use of such conventional
aspects of web security practices, such as, public key infrastructure (PKI) and
XML languages. Notwithstanding, as found supra, the definition of web service
includes protocols such as HTTP and XML, and Robinson discloses using PKI at
column 5, lines 40-52 and column 8, lines 1-17. The Examiner found, and
Appellants do not challenge the finding that XLST is an XML based language used
for the transformation of XML documents that is well known in the art (Answer
11).
Appellants next argue relative to claims 44 and 45,
neither ROBINSON nor GINTER teach a method
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013