Appeal No. 2000-0229
Application No. 08/603,005 Page 10
pattern formed by the number of apertures and their placement on
appellant's auxiliary display 24. Thus, we find that each bar
code representing a different product on the shelf constitutes a
different type of display to the same extent that appellant's
auxiliary display with holes represents a different type of
display. Accordingly, we find that Ahlm discloses a plurality of
auxiliary displays of different types by having a different bar
code for different products. We are unpersuaded by appellant's
assertion (reply brief, page 4) that the examiner “proceeds to
construe the claim language inconsistent with the usage of that
language both in the claims and in the description of the present
invention” and that Ahlm does not address auxiliary displays and
does not address sensing the type of auxiliary display. We find
that in Ahlm, each label 14 having bar code 12 is an auxiliary
display attached to shelf edge unit 10, and that each display
having a different bar code is a different type of display as the
each different display represents a different product. With
regard to appellant's assertion (brief, page 9) that Ahlm does
not disclose determining the type designation of the auxiliary
display from the pattern, we further find that the bar code
reader and circuitry that fetches the bar code information from
the memory in unit 10 of Ahlm discloses the type designation of
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007