Appeal No. 2001-1018
Application 09/211,688
‘395 appears to be the same as that in GB ‘575 and to
therefore suffer from the same deficiencies we have noted
above regarding GB ‘575. Thus, for the same reasons as set
forth above in our discussions of GB ‘575, the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 4, 7 through 10, 13 through 15,
18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by GB
‘395 will not be sustained.
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 1
through 4, 7 through 10, 13 through 15, 18 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Van Solt. In
evaluating this reference the examiner has again failed to
specifically point out where the “self-service checkout
terminal” of appellants’ claimed system and method is to be
found. In addition, the examiner has disregarded the
teachings of the Van Solt patent (e.g., col. 4, lines 24-27
and col. 5, Lines 1-5) that store personnel perform an audit
of a customer’s purchases, if such an audit is required, at a
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007