Appeal No. 2004-1251 Page 2
Application No. 09/972,658
code on a face thereof and a scanner operable to scan the face to verify the presence
of the bar code. A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the
appellant’s brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Jenkins et al. (Jenkins) 4,707,251 Nov. 17, 1987
Onzo 5,150,900 Sep. 29, 1992
Sity et al. (Sity) 6,331,145 Dec. 18, 2001
(§ 102(e) date Feb. 28, 2000)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Jenkins in view of Sity.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Jenkins in view of Sity and Onzo.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 10) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 9 and 11) for the appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
1 As should be apparent from our discussion, infra, the basis of the examiner’s rejection appears
to rely on Sity as the primary reference. In any event, it is clear that the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3
and 5 is based on the combined teachings of Jenkins and Sity and the rejection of claim 4 is based on the
combined teachings of Jenkins, Sity and Onzo.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007