Appeal No. 2000-0229
Application No. 08/603,005 Page 6
further asserts (brief, page 9) that Ahlm does not teach or
suggest "determining the type designation of the auxiliary
display from the pattern;" the "utilization of a plurality of
auxiliary displays having different types," nor "help[ing] to
ensure that the correct type of auxiliary display is matched with
an electronic price label" and that "similar distinctions exist
with respect to [independent] claim 5." (See also reply brief,
pages 4-6). Appellant asserts (brief, page 9) that Poland does
not make up for the failings of Ahlm because “While Poland
addresses printing of price labels of different sizes and the
like, it does not appear to provide any mechanism like that
presently claimed for assuring that the correct label is matched
with an electronic price label.” Appellant further asserts
(reply brief, page 4) that the examiner has improperly construed
the language of the claims.
From our review of the record, we agree with the examiner
that the teachings of Ahlms and Poland suggest the language of
claims 1, 2, and 5-17, for the reasons which follow. Ahlm
discloses a system for electronic price labels. In the
Background of the Invention, Ahlm recognizes the need for
transferring information from a central data base to the edges of
shelves where articles are located. Electronic price labels
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007