Appeal No. 96-0300
Application 08/090,285
12 of the brief. Appellant’s collective arguments as to this
rejection at pages 11 and 12 of the brief do not address the
particulars of the rejection as stated by the examiner, but
instead simply assert that the examiner is mixing two
subsystem portions of the same reference, an unpersuasive
argument.
Appellant’s arguments do recognize that Malec does update
the storage message data, however. This is consistent with
the examiner’s position. Appellant’s position does not argue
that the reference does not teach the claim limitations as
argued by the examiner within 35 U.S.C. § 103. The updating
feature is not recited with any degree of specificity such as
to distinguish over the teachings isolated by the examiner and
generally admitted by appellant to be in the Malec patent.
The updating feature in this reference is consistent with the
teachings of the summary of the invention of Malec, the normal
operations of Figs. 1 through 5 of this reference, and
particularly the edit operation at col. 6, lines 25 through 33
and the ability of the in-store computer to update program and
data segments in the cart-based electronic units 514 depicted
in Fig. 10 and discussed beginning at col. 16, line 11. To
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007