Prior art

Analysis of Prior Art Cited in US Patent 5,910,988

The following analysis details the prior art references cited by the USPTO examiner during the prosecution of US Patent 5,910,988. These references were considered in the original examination and are crucial for understanding the patent's scope and novelty at the time of its grant.

---

1. US Patent 5,220,501 A: Apparatus and method for routing facsimile messages in a store and forward facsimile system

• Full Citation: Lawlor, et al., US Patent 5,220,501 A
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: Dec 20, 1990; Published: Jun 15, 1993
• Brief Description: This patent discloses a store-and-forward facsimile system where incoming fax messages are stored at a central "hub" computer. The system digitizes the fax, stores the image, and can then route it to various destinations based on routing information. It describes a centralized system for receiving, storing, and forwarding document images.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is relevant to the general concept of centralizing document image storage. However, it does not appear to anticipate the complete three-tiered architecture of Claim 1. Specifically, it lacks the "remote data access subsystem" for initial capture (it assumes a standard fax machine sends the image) and the distinct "data collecting subsystem" as an intermediary between the remote site and the central processor. It primarily describes a central hub model, which aligns with the "central data processing subsystem" but not the entire claimed system structure.

2. US Patent 5,479,510 A: Electronic purchase and delivery verification system

• Full Citation: Olsen, et al., US Patent 5,479,510 A
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: Jun 7, 1993; Published: Dec 26, 1995
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system for verifying purchases. At the point of sale, purchaser information (like a signature or photo) is captured and sent to a central database. When the goods are delivered, the recipient's information is captured again and compared to the centrally stored data for verification.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference discloses capturing data at a remote location (point of sale/delivery) and processing it at a central location. This maps to the first and third tiers of Claim 1. However, it does not explicitly describe the intermediate "data collecting subsystem." The system architecture appears to be a two-tier (remote-to-central) model rather than the three-tiered structure required by the claim. Therefore, it would likely not anticipate Claim 1.

3. US Patent 5,590,038 A: Universal electronic transaction card

• Full Citation: Pitroda, US Patent 5,590,038 A
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: Jun 7, 1995; Published: Dec 31, 1996
• Brief Description: This patent focuses on a "smart card" (UET card) that stores transaction information directly on the card's memory, acting as a substitute for paper receipts. The invention is centered on the card itself and its functionality.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is cited in the '988 patent's background section as an example of an approach that eliminates paper but fails to provide third-party verification. It does not describe a system architecture with remote capture, intermediate collection, and central processing for both paper and electronic records. Its focus is on the transaction device (the card) and not the back-end processing system architecture outlined in Claim 1. It does not anticipate the claims.

4. US Patent 5,602,933 A: Method and apparatus for verification of remotely accessed data

• Full Citation: Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., US Patent 5,602,933 A
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: Mar 15, 1995; Published: Feb 11, 1997
• Brief Description: This patent details a system for verifying a user's identity by comparing remotely acquired data (like a PIN or biometric data) with corresponding data stored at a central facility. The context is primarily for controlling access to services like cable television.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference teaches the remote capture and central verification of data, which are elements of the '988 patent's system. However, like other references, it lacks the specific three-tiered structure of Claim 1, particularly the intermediate "data collecting subsystem." The architecture is more of a direct remote-to-central communication for verification purposes.

5. US Patent 5,649,118 A: System for performing electronic commercial transactions

• Full Citation: Carlisle, et al., US Patent 5,649,118 A
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: Jun 7, 1995; Published: Jul 15, 1997
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system for conducting electronic commerce. It involves a customer computer, a merchant computer, and a payment computer (Acquirer). The system architecture breaks down the transaction process into distinct parts handled by different networked computers, including authentication and payment authorization.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This system involves multiple, distinct subsystems communicating over a network to handle a transaction. One could argue that the merchant computer is a "remote data access subsystem" and the Acquirer's computer is a "central data processing subsystem." However, it is not clear if there is a direct analogue to the intermediate "data collecting subsystem" of Claim 1. The focus is on the flow of transaction authorization data rather than a system for capturing, batching, and centrally storing images of paper and electronic records. It is unlikely to anticipate the full three-tier structure for the purposes described in the '988 patent.

6. US Patent 5,671,282 A: Secure-server architecture

• Full Citation: Wolff, et al., US Patent 5,671,282 A
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: Dec 1, 1995; Published: Sep 23, 1997
• Brief Description: This patent discloses a network architecture for secure transactions. It describes a system with a "proxy server" that acts as an intermediary between a user on a public network (like the internet) and a secure application server on a private network. This proxy handles security and filters requests.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is interesting because its "proxy server" could be analogous to the "data collecting subsystem" of Claim 1, acting as an intermediate tier. The user's computer would be the "remote data access subsystem," and the application server would be the "central data processing subsystem." While the functions are different (secure access vs. batch data collection), the tiered architecture is conceptually similar. An argument for obviousness might be constructed by combining this architecture with a system for document processing, but for a strict anticipation analysis under § 102, it is unlikely to disclose all elements of Claim 1, as it does not teach the capture of paper transaction data or the specific management and polling functions described in the '988 patent.

7. US Patent 5,717,989 A: System and method for centralized contact management

• Full Citation: Tozzoli, et al., US Patent 5,717,989 A
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed: Apr 26, 1996; Published: Feb 10, 1998
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system where remote users (e.g., a salesforce) can upload and download contact management data to and from a central server. The system allows for synchronization of data between the remote users' devices and the central database.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This system features remote data entry and a central data processing subsystem. It contemplates data being collected from multiple remote sources and managed centrally. However, it does not disclose the intermediate "data collecting subsystem" that polls the remote units. It also does not specifically mention the capture of paper documents or the imaging and processing steps detailed in the '988 patent. It does not appear to anticipate Claim 1.