Appeal No. 97-2423
Application 08/275,964
limitation. The recitation of "a rotatable table for
rotating a cartridge placed thereon with respect to said bar
code reader" (emphasis added) clearly requires rotational
relative motion between the table holding the cartridge and
the bar code reader. Since "relative motion" is defined as
"the motion of one body with respect to another regarded as
fixed," as noted by appellant (RBr2), rotating a cartridge
"with respect to" the bar code reader indicates relative
motion therebetween. The examiner's argument (SEA1) that
the claims do not contain the actual words "relative" or
"relative motion" is unpersuasive. If the bar code reader
is mounted on the rotatable table, as shown in Blum, U.S.
Patent 4,654,727, issued March 31, 1987, mentioned at
column 1, lines 51-58, of Simone, there is no relative
motion between the cartridge on the table and the bar code
reader. Since Simone does not teach or suggest the
limitation of "a rotatable table for rotating a cartridge
placed thereon with respect to said bar code reader," the
rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 9 is reversed.
REVERSED
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007