Appeal No. 98-0588
Application 08/501,293
Claims 21, 24-37, 39 and 40
The examiner finally rejected claims 21, 24-37, 39 and 40
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Reddersen in
view of Tymes, Shepard, Tremmel, and Moellering. In the
examiner’s answer, the examiner states that only Reddersen and
Tymes will be discussed in order to simplify the issues.
(Paper No. 21 at 2).
Therefore, our discussion is limited only to Reddersen and
Tymes.
In the examiner’s answer the examiner states that the
claims comprehensively recite a bar code reading system as
shown in Figs. 1-6 of Tymes. The examiner acknowledges that
Tymes does not utilize a control bar code to configure the
communication from scanner to central. However, the examiner
argues that Reddersen clearly teaches this feature, in that
Reddersen discloses scanning a bar code to configure a
scanner’s communication parameters, referring to column 8,
lines 24-58 of Reddersen. The examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious that Reddersen’s teaching could be
employed with a non-cable system such as Tymes. (Paper No. 21
at 4). We agree.
The appellants, in their brief, argue that the examiner’s
final rejection of the claims over Reddersen in light of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007