Appeal No. 1999-0890
Application 07/575,096
pages 9-11) that independent claims 27, 78, 91, 93, 102 and 112
are allowable as the same reasons associated with claim 17 are
applicable to these latter claims.
As to claim 70, Appellants specifically argue that Dunkley
fails to disclose the controller means for controlling a display
and for printing a copy of the receipt with the signature.
Lastly, Appellants assert that neither Dunkley nor Iggulden
is directed to similar purposes as those of Appellants' invention
and accordingly any suggestion for the combination of the
references in the manner suggested by the Examiner comes from the
instant patent application and not from any suggestion in the
references.
In the rejection5 the Examiner asserts that claim 17 and its
dependent claims are obvious over Dunkley in view of Iggulden,
noting that sections (e) and (g) of claim 17 are not disclosed by
Dunkley, but asserts that section (f) of claim 17 is disclosed at
column 3, lines 57-59 of Dunkley.
As regards section (e) of claim 17 the Examiner also
asserts6 that it was unnecessary for Dunkley to display the
5Paper No. 23, at pages 5-8.
6See also the answer at page 4.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007