Appeal No. 1999-1625
Application No. 08/792,468
processor attached to the transportable container. Thus, we will
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 28.
Now we turn to the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable under Collins and Gogulski.
Appellants make the same argument that, this claim is allowable
due to its dependency on claim 27 and the same argument that this
claim is allowable because Collins fails to teach that "the
commodity code reader and payment processor are permanently fixed
to the transportable container." See page 9, lines 16-18 of the
brief. For the same reasons above, we find that Collins teaches
that the commodity code reader and payment processor are
permanently fixed to the transportable container. Therefore, we
will sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 29 for the same
reasons above.
Now we turn to the rejection of claims 35 and 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable under Collins and Gogulski.
Appellants make the same argument that, "the prior art fails to
teach or suggest the use of any structure permanently attached to
a transportable container for paying for selected commodities."
See page 10 of the brief. For the same reasons above, we find
that Collins teaches that the commodity code reader and payment
processor are permanently fixed to the transportable container
1212
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007