Ex Parte Monk - Page 5

           Appeal 2007-2451                                                                       
           Application 10/694,925                                                                 

       1   substantially contemporaneous. In addition, the Examiner finds that Melchione          
       2   discloses a system where, in a single session, accounts are linked together.   The     
       3   Examiner concludes that it would have been an obvious modification to Blossom          
       4   to include the single session linking feature to link the stored value and the credit  
       5   accounts at substantially the same time, to keep both accounts as an option from       
       6   the beginning of the card's use.  (Answer 4-5.)                                        
       7      The Appellant contends that, whereas claim 1 calls for a point of sale device       
       8   configured to distribute portions of the amount of a transaction between two           
       9   accounts associated with the same instrument, the references simply do not teach       
       10  nonzero payment distributions for a transaction at a point of sale device between      
       11  two accounts associated with the same instrument. Blossom teaches a reader which       
       12  selects a single account at a time, not the distribution between two accounts          
       13  explicitly taught by the claim. Thus, Blossom is relied upon to teach what appears     
       14  to be already known in the art, i.e. a single card associated with two or more         
       15  accounts. The Appellant further argues that Blossom does not suggest that it may       
       16  be modified to distribute the cost for the transaction among the accounts. The         
       17  Appellant concludes that Blossom cannot be relied upon to teach a nonzero              
       18  distribution between such accounts from a point-of-sale device. (Br. 4.)               
       19     The Appellant argues that Cameron's system comprises a graphical user               
       20  interface with an order payment window, and therefore, suggests a graphical            
       21  "window" including various "capture fields," clearly directed at remote order entry,   
       22  not a point-of-sale transaction.  The Appellant concludes that there is simply no      
       23  teaching or suggestion for nonzero distributions at a point-of-sale device. The        
       24  Appellant also argues that there is no suggestion in Cameron that the distribution     
       25  of a transaction amount be to different accounts from the same instrument.  The        

                                                5                                                 


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013