Appeal No. 2001-1018
Application 09/211,688
scanned items, and the system is well capable of allowing the
customer to re-entering [sic] the scanned items.” We find
this position to be speculative and unsupported in the record
and note that the terminal memory device of the self-service
checkout terminal of appellants’ claim 7 on appeal and the
processing unit therein are specifically programmed to
“operate said self-service checkout terminal so as to allow
said customer to enter said number of items into said self-
service checkout terminal in response to generation of said
audit-required control signal,” something clearly not present
in Schwartz, Van Solt or GB ‘395.
Since all the limitations of appellants’ independent
claims 1, 7 and 13 are not found in the applied prior art or
obvious therefrom, it follows that the examiner's rejection of
those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Schwartz, in view
of Van Solt or GB ‘395, as well as of claims 2 through 5, 8
through 11 and 14 through 16 which depend therefrom, will not
be sustained.
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007