Appeal No. 2001-1018
Application 09/211,688
checkout terminal to enter his/her own purchases.
Since, for the reasons set forth above, we agree with
appellants that each and every element or step of appellants’
claims 1 through 4, 7 through 10, 13 through 15, 18 and 19 are
not found in Van Solt, it follows that we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Looking to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through
4, 7 through 10, 13 through 15, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Van Solt, or GB ‘575, or GB
‘395, we observe that the examiner now appears to concede
(answer, page 7) that each of the references applied does not
disclose or teach a self-service checkout terminal that is
programmed to allow a self-audit, or a method where a self-
service checkout terminal is operated to allow the customer to
re-scan items to be purchased when an audit is ordered by the
retail system. To address such deficiencies, the examiner
asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention “to
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007