Appeal No. 2000-0229
Application No. 08/603,005 Page 9
From the disclosure of Ahlm, we agree with appellant (brief,
page 8) that “Ahlm proceeds from the assumption that the correct
label will be attached. If it is not, the unit 10 will display
the wrong information.” However, we find that in view of the
disclosure of Poland that the system ensure placement of the
overlay 14 in the correct location, that an artisan would have
recognized the importance of placing the display label at the
correct location, and would have been motivated to ensure that
the display label was provided in the correct location as taught
by Poland. Thus, we are not persuaded by appellant's assertion
that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of the
references, and find that Ahlm and Poland suggest “helping to
ensure that the correct type of auxiliary display is attached to
the electronic price label” as recited in independent claims 1
and 5.
With respect to appellant's assertion that Ahlm does not
suggest “utilizing a plurality of auxiliary displays of different
types” we note that this language which appears in independent
claims 1 and 5 is defined in appellant's specification (pages 3
and 8) as being defined by the pattern and number of apertures
62. We find that in Ahlm, the pattern formed by the number of
lines and their placement on the bar code 14 are akin to the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007