Appeal No. 1999-1780
Application No. 08/651,630
the examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to
provide the device of Lohrey with a queue control means like
that of Yehuda to provide for orderly control if a number of
customers desire to use the device of Lohrey at the same time.
Appellants do not dispute that it would have been obvious as a
general principle to provide a queue control means in Lohrey in
view of Yehuda’s teachings. Instead, appellants argue (reply
brief, pages 8-9) that the modified Lohrey device would not
result in the claimed subject matter because there in no
teaching in either applied reference of providing a display
means for displaying an identification of the customer and the
position of the customer in a queue.
Appellants’ argument is well taken. The examiner has not
pointed out, and it is not apparent to us, where Yehuda teaches
or suggests that the position of the customer in the queue
should be displayed on a display means. Instead, Yehuda merely
teaches that a variety of parameters, such as number of on-line
clerks, number of clerks to be added or subtracted, current
queue waiting time, current queue line length, and average
servicing time, should be displayed. In that the examiner has
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007