Appeal No. 2002-0333
Application No. 09/127,713
graphical user interface menu” (claim 19) or “means for generating a computer interface
menu of user selectable commands and parameter values” (claim 23).
Wilz indicates that function parameters can be set by reading one or more
corresponding function-encoded bar code symbols off a preprinted Bar Code Symbol
Programming Guide (column 15, lines 55-58) but there is no suggestion in the reference
of employing a displayed user menu, as required by the instant claims. The examiner
points to a laptop computer in Figure 9 and a menu for reading out commands in Figure
14 as evidence of a display for “menuing software” (answer-page 8). We have no doubt
that displayed user menus were known in the art at the time of the invention and that
such menus could have been used, as claimed, in the Wilz system. But in order to
conclude that it would have been obvious to do so, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§103, the examiner needed to espouse some convincing reason that would have led the
artisan to employ a displayed user menu of parameterization commands and parameter
values in Wilz. In our view, the examiner has not done so.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§103 over Wilz.
Even with the addition of Poland, in the additional rejection of claim 4, the
examiner employs Poland for a teaching of “a final identification code (the exit
configuration code) for programming the reader” (answer-page 6) and concludes that it
would have been obvious to have an end configuration code as taught by Poland in the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007