Appeal No. 1997-1109
Application No. 08/250,223
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Colson in view of Ishizawa.
Claims 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Colson.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Colson in view of Kimbrow.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
The rejections of claims 22, 24, and 25 are sustained.
The rejections of claims 1, 3-6, 8, 23 and 26 are reversed.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.196(b), claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 26 are
rejected for failure to comply with the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112.
According to appellant (Brief, page 3), the claim
language of independent claim 1, and the claims that depend
therefrom, Ħis inconsistent, and the input device is intended
to also be the item switch.˘ We agree. As a result of this
inconsistency, we are not able to determine exactly what
actions are needed to open the door that blocks access to the
storage locations. In addition, claim 1 states that the
plurality of item switches are Ħdisposed next to˘ storage
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007