Appeal No. 2000-0229
Application No. 08/603,005 Page 12
claims 1 and 5, which has not been successfully rebutted by
appellants.
Turning to claims 2 and 6, appellant asserts (brief, page 9)
that Ahlm lacks the elements of these claims. Appellant argues
that “Ahlm does not alert ‘an operator if the auxiliary type
designation in the stored information for the one electronic
price label fails to match the determined type designation,’” and
that Poland does not remedy the failings of Ahlm. In Poland
(col. 5, lines 6-20), if an overlay (auxiliary display) 14 is not
placed in the correct location, such as an incorrect aisle, tag
computer 22 sends an error condition packet to aisle controller
26 indicating the aisle number of the correct location, which is
briefly displayed. Similarly, if overlay 14 is placed on the
incorrect shelf, aisle controller 26 sends buffers to display
guiding hints comprised of arrow annunciators and display
segments arranged to form indications such as LO or HI. Thus, we
find that Ahlm does alert an operator if the auxiliary display
type designation in the stored information for the one
electronic price label fails to match the determined type
designation. Accordingly, we find that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 2 and 6,
which has not been successfully been rebutted by appellants.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007