Appeal No. 1999-1780
Application No. 08/651,630
dropped off at the kiosks are taken by a route driver for
processing, may be fairly considered a “holding area” within the
broad meaning of that terminology, and that this “holding area”
is attended by attendants. In this regard, we do not agree with
appellants’ argument (reply brief, page 6) to the effect that
claim 46 requires the holding area to be located in close
proximity to the kiosk. We also find that the transaction
record 68 recorded at the kiosk and stored in the memory of the
kiosk’s computer (column 10, lines 31-40) constitutes data
identifying the customer (via the customer’s credit card number)
and the item dropped off (via the listing of garment/services
input by the customer) (see Figure 5). In addition, we find
that the transaction record 68 is electronically transmitted to
the central processing plant from time to time via modem
communication (column 11, lines 1-4).
Based on these findings, we conclude that Lohrey
anticipates claim 46. More specifically, we consider that the
“identifying means” limitation of claim 46 “reads on” the
customer interface panel of Lohrey, and that the “message
transmitting means” limitation of claim 46 “reads on” the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007