Registers – Systems controlled by data bearing records – Credit or identification card systems
Reexamination Certificate
1999-12-31
2002-09-10
Frech, Karl D. (Department: 2876)
Registers
Systems controlled by data bearing records
Credit or identification card systems
C235S382000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06446862
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention pertains generally to a wearable or carryable apparatus typically owned, operated, and controlled by an individual person, for the individual to use in controlling the parameters of a purchase from a seller, where the seller may be either an individual or an organization.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Most purchases are made between an individual buyer and a seller who is either an organization or a representative of an organization. Such a situation places the individual buyer at a disadvantage as compared to the organization. Moreover, organizations often set the stage, and control the parameters of the purchase. For example, organizations often maintain strict control over the environment in which the purchase is made. This control may include security systems, hidden video surveillance cameras, collection of customer profiles, and the like. At the same time, many representatives of seller organizations shirk responsibility by not wearing their name tags, deliberately putting on their name tags backwards so their names don't show, and refusing to identify themselves when asked for their names.
The old aphorisms “The customer is king”, or “The customer is always right” have little bearing on the actual order of business within most sellers' establishments, in the sense that the seller is generally in control (e.g. “king”) of the process. For example, there is typically a so-called Point of Sale (PoS) terminal operated by the seller, whereas the buyer merely stands by patiently and lets the seller lead the way through the procedure. In almost all aspects of the transaction, ranging from designing advertisements, selecting the venue for the advertisements, setting the prices, designing the conditions of the sale, etc., the seller is typically in control.
Frequently a seller will ask a buyer to show various pieces of identification and provide vast amounts of personal information for a seller database, junk mail lists, and the like, yet the buyer will often refuse to provide even his or her name, let alone personal information such as home phone number, mailing address, and the like.
However, when one considers the damage that may arise from a lack of buyer or seller accountability, especially in low cost items the seller may at most lose the purchase price of the transaction, whereas the buyer is at far greater risk. For example, defective products like automotive parts (brake pads, safety products, etc.) can lead to extensive damage to a buyer's car, as well as putting the health and safety of the buyer and others at great risk. Other products such as pharmaceuticals, when defective, can inflict far greater damage to a buyer's health than the cost of the transaction. It is often not just the manufacturer to blame in matters of defective product. There is a growing number of grey-market dealers, knowingly selling defective pharmacy products. Numerous other defective products are distributed by sellers fully aware of their dangerous and often illegal actions. Moreover, many such sellers are dangerously arrogant and unaccountable.
Other examples where seller accountability is often lacking arise in the food production and restaurant businesses. Many restaurant owners knowingly maintain less than hygienic conditions. Although the seller representative may not be the person directly responsible for these conditions, the seller representative is typically connected in some way to the organization, if by no other means than the seller representative being an employee of the organization.
Moreover, a seller may provide a buyer with products containing trojan horses or viruses. For example, a seller may sell a computer program containing a malicious virus, or a trojan horse installed for espionage benefiting the seller.
Likewise for those selling services. Consider, for example, a doctor. Anyone could pretend to be a doctor, and display a fake certificate in an office. If a patient were to demand to see a copy of the doctor's photo ID, this would be seen as disrespectful of the patient, and would likely offend the doctor, even though the doctor may ask the patient to see some photo ID (such as health care or the like to prove the existence of payment capability, insurance coverage, or the like).
Shopkeepers and other building owners have developed means and apparatus for containment, confinement, and other forms of processing they wish to apply to individuals passing through their establishments.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,341,165 describes a revolving door which allows the building owner to entrap and detain persons suspected of shoplifting, stealing, or the like. U.S. Pat. No. 4,586,441 describes a similar invention that also analyzes the individual so entrapped. U.S. Pat. No. 4,461,221 describes a system for detaining robbers on premises. U.S. Pat. No. 4,341,165 also describes a similar system. U.S. Pat. No. 5,311,166 describes a system for directing water and chemical weapons on undesirable persons centering a premises. U.S. Pat. No. 5,528,220 describes a device that automatically sprays chemical weapons on individuals entering an area where the owners of the establishment would prefer that individuals not enter.
In addition to access control, there are also perimeter security devices such as that disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,182,764 to scan individuals for weapons, and other forms of devices that allow officials or security guards to see through clothing to inspect individuals. Some systems allow officials to secretly search individuals without their knowledge or consent, and without any kind of due process, despite the fact that such searches are often illegal and unconstitutional.
Environments in which the establishment owners are in control are well known in the prior art. U.S. Pat. No. 4,796,311 describes an intake facility whereby individuals may be required to undress completely, while being viewed by facility owners or the like, who can also monitor and control a decontamination process. U.S. Pat. No. 4,858,256 and U.S. Pat. No. 5,551,102 describe similar “decon” systems, whereby an individual may be prevented from passing from one section to another unless the individual complies with orders or requirements of those in control.
Historically, showers with airtight and watertight locking doors that cannot be opened by the occupants have been used to subject the occupants to various chemical substances. Such practices and procedures are well known in the prior art.
On the other hand, very little has been done to protect the individual from the forces of establishments.
Although physical protection of the body through armour is a centuries-old aspect of the prior art, dating back to the days when five to seven layers of rhinoceros skin were used to protect the body during battle, such physical protection of the body has not kept pace with new developments in the protection of establishments. Protection of establishments has evolved from the physical protection of medieval fortresses to information protection such as that used in bank towers with glass doors protected by card readers and retinal scanners. Thus the protection of establishments has moved from the physical era of the stone fortress to the informational era of biometrics.
The protection of the body has not kept pace with this move from physical stone fortresses to informational protection of buildings.
Online shopping has evolved with methods of protecting the shopper from unwanted advertising (spam), but these protective measures (e.g. spam filters) only apply to cyberspace and still fail, in the real world (e.g. outside cyberspace), to protect the buyer from manipulation by the seller.
REFERENCES:
patent: 3833300 (1974-09-01), Rymes
patent: 4035792 (1977-07-01), Price et al.
patent: 4220400 (1980-09-01), Vizenor
patent: 4636866 (1987-01-01), Hattori
patent: 4806011 (1989-02-01), Bettinger
patent: 5095326 (1992-03-01), Nozaki et al.
patent: 5323264 (1994-06-01), Kato
patent: 5331333 (1994-07-01), Tagawa et al.
patent: 5546099 (1996-08-01), Quint et al.
p
Frech Karl D.
Sanders Allyson
LandOfFree
Point of purchase (PoP) terminal does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Point of purchase (PoP) terminal, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Point of purchase (PoP) terminal will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2875882