Appeal No. 2002-0333
Application No. 09/127,713
Turning first to claim 12, it is the examiner’s position (answer-pages 3-4) that
Wilz teaches a process for the parameterization of scanners for a one-dimensional bar
code or two-dimensional code. The examiner says that Wilz inherently selects a
“character coding symbology” (answer-page 3) and defines a number of character
strings representing parameterization commands (referring to the abstract) and a
number of parameters assigned to the commands (referring to Figures 10, 10A and 17);
stores all the character strings (referring to the abstract and Figure 8); and establishes a
display menu of suggested options for each command and suggested values for each
parameter (referring to Figures 9, 10 and 10A). The examiner further contends that
Wilz , at the time of parameterization of a specified bar code scanner, selects the
appropriate command and parameter for each parameterization command and each
parameter possibly assigned to the command (referring to Figure 12, step D);
reassembles all the selected character strings representing the parameterization
commands and the possibly assigned parameters, in at least one sequence of character
strings of maximum length at the most equal to the length of the scanning range of the
scanner (referring to Figure 1); converts each sequence of character
strings so as to obtain a corresponding graphical symbol (referring to Figures 12-15);
edits a card containing each graphical symbol obtained (referring to Figures 14 and 15);
and reads, via the scanner, each graphical symbol so as to store all the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007