Appeal No. 1999-1780
Application No. 08/651,630
“[the] item to be dropped off” of claim 46 are one and the same
item. Thus, even if we were to agree with the examiner that it
would have been obvious as a general proposition to provide
Lohrey with means to store customer histories for advertising
and promotional purposes, such would have tracked categories of
items (e.g., shirts, suits) rather than specific items. Thus,
it does not necessarily follow that “[the] item to be dropped
off” of claim 46 would be an item from that database of past
transactions. Hence, even if Lohrey were to be modified in the
manner called for by the examiner, the claimed subject matter
would not necessarily result. For this reason, the standing
rejection of claim 48 cannot be sustained.
Claims 33, 34, 42, 43, 49 and 50
Claims 33, 34, 42, 43, 49 and 50 have been rejected by the
examiner as being unpatentable over Lohrey in view of Yehuda.
Claim 49 depends from claim 46 and adds that the kiosk of
the base claim includes displaying means for displaying an
identification of the customer and the position of the customer
in a queue. Claims 33 and 42 depend from claims 28 and 37,
respectively, and contain similar limitations. Concerning the
rejection of these dependent claims further in view of Yehuda,
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007