Appeal No. 2000-0229
Application No. 08/603,005 Page 13
With respect to the remaining claims, we note that under the
heading “Grouping of Claims” (brief, page 6) appellant recites
limitations from many of the claims, but does not present any
arguments as to why appellants believe these limitations are not
taught or suggested by Ahlm and Poland. Under 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7) “[m]erely pointing out differences in what the claims
cover is not an argument as to why the claims are separately
patentable." Nevertheless, we will address each of the
limitations recited by appellant.
With respect to claims 11 and 12, in view of Poland’s
disclosure of displaying the correct location in response to
overlay 14 being placed in an incorrect location, we find that
Ahlm and Poland suggest the claimed “means for alerting an
operator of a type mismatch.” In addition, we agree with the
examiner, for the reasons set forth on pages 4 and 5 of the
answer, that it would have been obvious to have displayed the
error condition on a monitor or printer in view of Poland’s
disclosure of both a host computer and a tag computer in the
store.
With regard to claims 7, 8, 14, and 15, we find that because
Poland’s store tag computer 22 searches the product location
table in its memory to determine whether the store person mounted
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007