Appeal No. 1998-0876 Application 08/269,703 Fukatsu shows an integrated terminal and, so, does not cure the deficiencies of Vassigh. The Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claims 7-13 is reversed. Although we have reversed the rejection of claims 7-13, we nevertheless comment on other errors in the Examiner's rejection. With respect to claim 10, the Examiner has not addressed the limitation of a stand for supporting a data recording device above a checkout counter as claimed. With respect to claims 11 and 13, we refer to the discussion of claims 4 and 5, supra. Claim 14 Claim 14 recites a "signature capture device." The Examiner applies Norwood and concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Vassigh with Norwood so as to recognize a customer's signature (FR6; EA7). Appellants argue that Norwood is concerned with combining handwritten input with keyboard input in a general purpose computer system and there is no discussion of use of a signature capture device in a retail system as claimed (Br15). - 9 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007