Appeal No. 1997-0344
Application 08/326,992
appellant’s claims 1 to 14.
The examiner is correct that Swartz (column 1, lines 25 to 36 and column 2, lines 29 to 49)
teaches a point-of-sale system which updates and prints out price information so as to minimize price
mismatch (see Answer, page 5). The examiner is also correct that Hunt (Figure 10 and columns 7 to 8)
teaches displaying price data in a point-of-sale system to avoid price
mismatch and that Blanford (Figure 4) teaches a price-lookup file and a CPU (see Answer, page 5).
However, the examiner has failed to point out which reference is relied upon to teach which elements of
the claims. The examiner has nowhere provided a statement addressing the underlying factual inquiries
including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the prior art; and (3)
the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 1 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue (Brief, pages 7 to 13) that the rejection of claims 1 to 14 is improper because
the examiner has not adequately shown that the cited references (Swartz, Hunt, and Blanford) teach or
suggest each and every element as recited in combination in the claims. We agree. The examiner has
failed to meet the requirements for an Answer set forth in 37 CFR 1.193(a) and in MPEP 1208 of
stating where in the references each specific limitation of appellant’s claims is found, identifying any
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007