Appeal No. 96-3681
Application 08/234,450
Thus, according to the teachings in Johnsen, there is no
permanent affixation of Johnsen's tag device, including its
internal memory 34 of Figure 2, to the merchandise item. As
such, we reverse the rejection of independent claims 1 and 19
and the rejection of dependent claims 2 through 6 as well.
Before proceeding to consideration of the other
independent claims on appeal, we observe in passing that the
subject matter of claim 2/1 appears identical to that which is
set forth in independent claim 19 on appeal. Thus, there
would appear to
be a violation of 37 CFR § 1.75(b) as to the avoidance of
substantially duplicate claims.
We also reverse the rejection of independent claim 21 on
appeal. The preamble of this claim requires a label for a
“purchased merchandise item,” which quoted language is also
recited in the body of the claim on appeal. More
specifically, the wherein clause of claim 21 recites that the
electronic memory is an integral part of “the purchased
merchandise item.” In view of the earlier noted portions of
Johnsen with respect to our reversal of independent claims 1
and 19 on appeal, it is apparent that the tag device of 10 of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007