Appeal No. 97-0178
Application 08/355,326
these codes.” We disagree. The Examiner has not provided any evidence or convincing
line of reasoning as to why it would have been obvious to have the “mounting means
comprises a portable housing, and said first and second scanner heads comprise scanner
4
wands.” Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 22.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11,
13-15, 17-21, and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner
to reject claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
We do note that the PTO “Patent Application Locating and Monitoring” (PALM) system did use4
single wand scanners for many years during the 1980's which were later replaced by hand held scanning
guns. See also page 1 of the specification discussing well known readers including wand scanners.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007