Appeal No. 1998-0646
Application No. 08/485,269
transaction data and asserted that it differed from that taught or suggested by Wright. The
specification referenced states that “[f]urthermore, in one of the disclosed embodiments,
data is transported from system 10 to a similar system using an IC card. It may also be
desirable to download data such as accounting files from system 10 through a
communications network to a remote computer which, for example, handles the billing.”
Alone, we find this disclosure insufficient to define transaction records as accounting data,
but upon further review of the specification as filed, there are a number of discrete
statements throughout the specification at pages 4, 9, 20, 25, 27-28, 39 and 40
concerning the storage and updating of the shipping rates stored in the internal memory
and the printing and storage of current transaction records in the accounting information
files (see Fig. 9) of a nature which would be usable for accounting and billing purposes.
Therefore, we interpret the “transaction records” in view of the disclosed meaning of the
term in the specification. The teachings and suggestions of Wright do not teach or
suggest maintaining transaction records, for accounting purposes as disclosed in the
instant specification, in the internal memory of the scale system. Similarly, Hikita does not
teach or suggest the storage of shipping rates or transaction records in the internal
memory as recited in the language of claim 201.
The examiner argues that “[s]imply giving data a different label, such as
‘transaction records’ or ‘shipping rates’ does not alter the data in any way. The
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007