Appeal No. 1997-0344
Application 08/326,992
updates the prices within the price-lookup file and individually sends the updated prices to a label
printing routine as they are updated to avoid price mismatch between the price-lookup file and a printed
label on an item whose price has changed.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Blanford 4,679,154 Jul. 7, 1987
Hunt 5,111,196 May 5, 1992
Swartz 5,448,046 Sep. 5, 1995
(filed Aug. 18, 1994)
Claims 1 to 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner apparently relies upon Swartz in view of Hunt and Blanford. We note that the Answer fails to
state the grounds of rejection other than to list the prior art relied upon as being Swartz, Hunt, and
Blanford (Answer, page 1). The Answer at page 2 also incorrectly addresses the Brief’s listing of the
only issue being whether claims 1 to 14 are patentable over Swartz in view of certain other secondary
references (Brief, page 2) as being correct since the examiner has apparently dropped certain
secondary references from the rejection (e.g., Davis, Harris, Wolfe, Collins, Goodwin, Failing, and
"etc." are no longer relied upon). Because the examiner has only listed and has only discussed the
references to Swartz, Hunt, and Blanford, we assume the rejection to be one under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Swartz in view of Hunt and Blanford.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellant and the examiner, reference is made to the Brief
and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007