Appeal No. 2002-0333
Application No. 09/127,713
symbol reader because Wilz is concerned with identically copying a parameterization or
setup of a master bar code reader that does not allow user selection of commands and
values. Thus, appellants argue, Wilz does not provide for editing a sequence of
parameters by displaying a menu because the goal of Wilz is to program a bar code
symbol reader to have the same function parameters as a master bar code symbol
reader and, therefore, Wilz would have no reason to provide a menu of user selectable
choices if the goal is to copy a set of parameters identically from one reader to another
(brief-page 9).
The examiner’s response is to point to column 15, lines 39-41, of Wilz for the
disclosure of “the bar code symbol reader hereof may be programmed into any one of
typically tens of thousands of different possible Function Configuration States.” The
examiner concludes that this evidences a flexibility in programming bar code readers,
“and as a subset of this flexibility, using a particular master configured according to
numerous possible configurations, to create several copies of the particular master
selected” (answer-page 7). Apparently, the examiner contends that since this is done
with the aid of a “function parameter reading computer” which may use MS-DOS,
Microsoft Windows, etc. and all of these systems “are known to contain menu driven
software” (answer-page 7), Wilz must be suggesting receiving commands and
parameter values selected from a computer display menu of commands and parameter
values.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007