Appeal No. 1997-3481
Application 08/476,543
see what language the Examiner is concerned with. The
rejection of dependent claims 16-24 is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 103
The rejection
Initially, we must straighten out what prior art the
rejection is based upon.
In the first Office action, the Examiner stated the
rejection as follows (Paper No. 3, page 3):
Claims 15-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the prior art of record in the
parents and as set forth it [sic] previously with the
addition of Swartz (4,251,798) and Sanner) [sic].
Note col.[ ]5, lines 9-17 of '98 and fig. 1(a) of
Sanner cumulative to Swartz (4,593,186) "different" bar
codes.
As noted by Appellants (Br5), there were approximately 50
references of record in related applications. Appellants
state that since it is unlikely that the Examiner suggests a
rejection based on a combination of 50 references, they take
the position that the rejection was based solely on
Swartz '798, Swartz, U.S. Patent 4,593,186 (Swartz '186), and
Sanner (Br5).
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner states (FR2):
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007