Appeal No. 1999-0890
Application 07/575,096
display screen which displays both the form and signature, and
stores the combination for later retrieval, operates in a manner
substantially different from the activity of an operator who
manually processes the paper system of Dunkley.
These findings regarding section (g) of claim 17 apply
equally to section (k) of claim 27, section (h) of claim 78, the
fifth subparagraph of claim 84, subsection (d) of claim 91,
subsection (e) of claim 93, and the last subparagraphs of claims
102 and 112. Except for claim 70, these are all of the
independent claims before us.
As to claim 70, Appellants argue and the Examiner agrees
that Dunkley fails to disclose the controller means for
controlling a display and for printing a copy of the receipt,
including the signature. The Examiner contends that such
disclosure by Dunkley is unnecessary since a paper charge form is
attached to the upper surface of the touch sensitive screen and
the customer receives at least a portion of it. The Examiner
notes that Iggulden teaches printing the transaction and
signature via a printer.
The claim limitation "controller means for controlling a
display of a receipt . . . and for printing a copy of the
receipt" is written in means-plus-function language because it
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007