Appeal No. 2002-1846
Application 09/146,199
A. The rejection of Claims 17-20, 24, 26-36, and 39-45 as
Unpatentable over Mindrum, Bass, Orr, and Shimoda
Independent claims 20 and 36 appear the broadest and are reproduced below:
20. A point of sale system, comprising:
(a) a terminal at a customer checkout location, said terminal having
means for reading product codes on product items in a customer’s order;
(b) item record file means for storing price and product identification
information for product items;
(c) a store controller with which said terminal can communicate, said
store controller in communication with said item record file; and
(d) means for collecting and storing system test data, said system test data
comprising a log of events including at least one of (1) loop error events, (2)
terminal reload events, (3) price change at the terminal events, and (4) item-not-
on-file events.
36. A process comprising the steps of:
(a) reading product codes on product items in a customer’s order using a
terminal at a customer checkout location;
(b) storing price and product identification information for product items
in an item record file;
(c) transmitting price and product identification information from the
item record file to an [sic, a] store controller;
(d) transmitting customer purchase data from said terminal to said store
controller; and
(e) collecting and storing system test data, said system test data
comprising a log of events including at least one of (1) loop error events, (2)
terminal reload events, (3) price change at the terminal events, and (4) item-not-
on-file events.
Other independent claims in this case are claims 17-19 and claims 33-35. Unlike claims 20 and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007