Appeal 2007-2070
Application 10/123,457
1 The Examiner is in error in the finding that claim 1 does not require that the
2 memory interface be coupled to a physical memory by a representative of the
3 product source, as we found, supra.
4 However, Treyz explicitly recites that the physical memory may be updated
5 by a flash card (FF 06). Treyz also explicitly describes placing information into
6 the memory via RFID tags (FF 02 & 06) and that product information may be
7 provided by multiple manufacturers (FF 04).
8 The Examiner should consider whether having a representative of a product
9 source providing such information by inserting Treyz’s flash memory into the
10 wireless device would have been a predictable variation of Treyz, since “[i]f a
11 person of ordinary skill in the art can implement a predictable variation, § 103
12 likely bars its patentability.” KSR at 1740.
13 The Examiner should similarly consider whether Treyz’s RFID tags are
14 physical memory that representatives of the product source access to couple with
15 the wireless device’s memory interface, and if so whether the wireless access of
16 RFID is simply a predictable variation of the physical access recited in claim 1.
17 Finally, the Examiner should consider whether claim 1 is simply the
18 automation of known methods of creating physical product promotion displays.
19 One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine an old
20 electromechanical device with electronic circuitry “to update it using modern
21 electronic components in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such
22 adaptation, such as decreased size, increased reliability, simplified operation, and
23 reduced cost. . . . The combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention
24 . . . using newer technology that is commonly available and understood in the art.”
25 Leapfrog at 1163.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013