Appeal 2007-1672
Application 09/966,540
information from the product server without providing an identification
of a user of the transaction device.
A. ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown error in the rejection.
B. FINDING OF FACTS
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. The Examiner found that
… Buckley et al. clearly disclose a transaction device (figure 3E;
column/line 4/48-5/8) comprising a sensor module (e.g. barcode
reader) (column 5, lines 9-37; column 6, lines 12-19) and a
communication module (figures 4 and 5), that are configured to
receive (e.g. product information) (figure 9; column 8, lines 27-44)
and transmit data to servers (figures 4, 5, 8 and 9; column 9, lines 8-
64 or inherently DNS, caching, and/or proxy servers), respectively.
The device also receives data from servers based on the product
identification (figures 4, 5, 8 and 9; column 10, lines 14-65), makes
requests to purchase a product without providing an identifier of the
user (column/line 5/62-6/13), stores retrieved product data (figure 9;
column 10, lines 7-39; column/line 10/55-11/26).
(Answer 6).
2. Appellant did not dispute the Examiner’s characterization of what
Buckley discloses.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013