Appeal No. 96-0125
Application 07/878,100
in scope with claim 1. Claim 1 covers a unit that is remote from
practically anything.
Humble’s unit is contained at a checkout stand. There are
typically a plurality of such units at a plurality of checkout
stands as suggested by Humble. Any one of these units is remote
from all the other units. Given the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “remote,” Humble suggests a remote unit. An
item produced at checkout is an item “desired” by the customer,
and Humble’s device identifies the item. Humble’s data store 16
stores data representative of the identified product. The Humble
storage area also stores product specification information such
as brand name and size. Finally, Humble’s processing means
provides promotional data about the selected product, a competing
product or a complementary product as claimed [column 2, lines
40-65]. Humble also suggests a rule based system as recited in
claim 1 [column 1, lines 49-53; column 3, lines 16-34]. Thus,
Humble would appear to suggest every feature recited in claim 1
when claim 1 is given its broadest reasonable interpretation.
We recognize that the means plus function language of the
claims requires a consideration of factual issues which have not
been briefed in this case. Specifically, the apparatus
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007