Appeal No. 1999-1625
Application No. 08/792,468
pay for the commodity at said first selection site. Thus, we
will sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 27, 30 and 32
through 34.
Now we turn to the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Collins and Gogulski.
Appellants make the argument that this claim is allowable due to
its dependency on claim 27 and that, "none of the prior art
references suggest selecting commodities at two different
selection sites and paying for those commodities using a payment
processor attached to the transportable container at one of the
selection sites." See page 9, lines 7, 8 and 11-13 of the brief.
We note that claim 28 is dependent upon claim 27. As stated
above, we find that Collins teaches that the invention "enables a
check-out operation to occur anywhere in the store where an
electrical receptacle 66 is located." See column 5, lines 49-51.
Therefore, we find that Collins' scanning system attached to a
cart (i.e., a transportable container) allows a purchaser to
select a second commodity to be purchased at a second selection
site, different from the first selection site, read a second
commodity code of the second commodity at the second selection
site and pay for the second commodity as a function of the second
commodity code read at the second selection using the payment
1111
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007