Appeal No. 2001-1018
Application 09/211,688
The last of the examiner’s rejections for our review is
that of claims 1 through 5, 7 through 11 and 13 through 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Schwartz in view of Van
Solt or GB ‘395. In this instance, the examiner has taken the
position that Schwartz “discloses all of the claimed
limitations except it does not exclusively discloses a hand
held scanner” (answer, page 6). The examiner relies on the
teachings of Van Solt or GB ‘395 to show that the use of hand
held scanners is well known in the self-service store arts,
and concludes that at the time of appellants’ invention it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
provide Schwartz’s system with a hand held scanner for each
customer as disclosed by either Van Solt or GB ‘395 in order
to simplify the self-service shopping process.
Even if one were to use the hand held scanners of either
Van Solt or GB ‘395 in the system of Schwartz, we are in
agreement with appellants (brief, page 49) that the system and
method resulting from such a combination would not be that
defined in independent claims 1, 7 and 13 on appeal. We again
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007