Appeal No. 2000-0229
Application No. 08/603,005 Page 11
auxiliary display, i.e., the type of auxiliary display
representing a particular product.
Appellants further argues (reply brief, page 3, see also
brief, page 9) that:
As Ahlm does address reading a bar code 14 from the
back of a label 12, but fails to make the present
advantageous invention, it should be considered as
secondary evidence of nonobviousness, evidence of
failure of others in the field.
and that:
[A]lthough Poland shows different size price labels, it
too does not deal with “auxiliary displays” and the
sensing of the “type” of auxiliary display as presently
claimed, and is also evidence of failure of others.
We disagree with appellant's contention that the disclosures
of Ahlm and Poland should be given weight as evidence of
secondary considerations of obviousness. We find no separate
evidence in the record to establish that Ahlm and/or Poland
recognized the problem that appellants faced and tried and failed
to solve the problem. In addition, we find that Poland solves
the problem of ensuring that the auxiliary display is placed in
the proper location, as our discussion makes clear.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness of independent
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007