Appeal 2007-1672
Application 09/966,540
3. Appellant argued that “Buckley is completely silent on whether or not
the user’s identity is revealed during the request” (Appeal Br. 4).
4. The Examiner did not dispute that Buckley does not explicitly
mention not revealing the user’s identity. The Examiner responded as
follows:
… Appellant asserts that Buckley et al. do not teach obtaining
product information from the product server without providing an
identification of a user of the transaction device. Buckley et al.
disclose an interactive data transfer system comprising a pen, a data
well, and a remote computer ('871, abstract; figures 2A, 3A-C and 4).
Specifically, Buckley et al. teach a user scanning a barcode with a pen
and storing the scanned barcode in pen memory ('871, column 6, lines
13-18). When the pen is ready to send the scanned barcodes over the
internet ('871, figure 4), the pen interfaces with a data well and
downloads the barcodes to the well ('871; figures 3A-E; column 6,
lines 58-67) which sends the barcodes to a computer ('871, figure 3A)
for transfer to a remote internet server ('871, figure 4). For example,
Buckley et al. apply teach scanning a product identifier (e.g.
encyclopedia, newspaper, or item barcode) to obtain product
information (e.g. encyclopedia information, ads, catalog website for
placing an order for an item) ('871, figures 4, 5, and 9; column 9, lines
8-25; column 11, lines 45-50; column 12, lines 37-51). In each
instance, the information conveyed from the pen to the data well to
the computer to the internet server is the only barcode, hence Buckley
et al. explicitly teach obtaining product information from a product
server through a privacy server ('871, figure 5) without providing an
identification of a user of the transaction device (i.e. pen and data
well).
(Answer 11-12).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013