Appeal No. 96-3681
Application 08/234,450
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answers
for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
As to the outstanding rejection of claims 1 through 6 and
19 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Johnsen, we sustain only the rejection of independent claim 20
and reverse the rejection of all remaining claims.
We reverse the rejection of independent claims 1 and 19
on appeal since both of these claims contain the recitation
that the claimed electronic memory “is permanently affixed to
the merchandise item.” Appellants' argument at page 6 of the
reply brief is well taken that Johnsen's tag device 10 in
Figures 1 and 2 is not permanently affixed because the tag
device is removed during the checkout process to be reused in
the store with other merchandise. From the examiner's
perspective, the discussion at column 4, line 66 through
column 5, line 19 of Johnsen is perhaps the best statement of
the nature of the attachment or affixation of Johnsen's tag
device 10 to the merchandise item. However, this portion of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007