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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007