Appeal No. 1999-1625
Application No. 08/792,468
and therefore we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
35 and 36.
Now we turn to the rejection of claims 24 through 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable under Collins, Gogulski and
Ehrat. Appellants make the argument that these claims are
allowable due to their dependency on claims 13-23. See page 5,
lines 21 and 22 of the brief. Therefore we will sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 24 through 26 for the same reasons
above.
Now we turn to the rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable under Collins, Gogulski and Hehemann.
Appellants state that "Heheman[n] does not correct the
deficiencies noted above with respect to Collins, Jr., '947 and
Gogulski." See page 9, lines 3-5 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 sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 31 for the reasons set forth above.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the decision of
the Examiner rejecting claims 13 through 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Accordingly, the decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
1313
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007