Appeal No. 2000-0259
Application No. 08/827,835
As further asserted by the Examiner, signals are generated in
Opoczynski which logically enable a specific slave station to
receive the message, thereby eliminating the need for expensive
address comparators at the slave station locations. The Examiner
concludes (id.):
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention
to have utilized an address comparison routing
capability in the above systems (Sundelin,
Waterhouse, Joliey) to ensure operation of the
proper price tag module in a system of a vast
number of price tag modules, as suggested by
Opoczynski.
In response, Appellant asserts that the Examiner has not
established proper motivation for the proposed combination of
references so as to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness.
After careful review of the applied prior art references in light
of the arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellant’s
position as stated in the Brief. As argued by Appellant (Brief,
pages 5-8), the Examiner has pointed to no disclosure in
Opoczynski that would suggest any support for the Examiner’s
assertion that the price tag module systems of Sundelin,
Waterhouse, or Joliey could be modified to incorporate an
address-free price tag module that is selectively enabled to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007