Appeal No. 2000-0229
Application No. 08/603,005 Page 14
overlay 14 in the proper location on an electronic display strip
24 (col. 3, lines 35-41 and col. 4, lines 28-30), we find that
Ahlm and Poland suggest “a remote electronic price label record
including a suitability field.”
With regard to claims 9 and 16, Poland discloses (col. 3,
lines 41-47) that:
Tag computer 22 detects the occurrence of overlay 14
being mounted on display strip 24 by polling an aisle
controller 26 at a frequent interval. Each aisle
controller 26 in turn polls each of a multiplicity of
gondola controllers 28 on separate serial ports for a
change in status of any of the display strips 24
attached to shelves on the same gondola.
From this disclosure of Poland, we find that Poland teaches
circuit means (claim 9) or method (claim 16) “operable to
redetermine the type designation . . . as auxiliary labels are
removed, added or replaced” because polling will detect whether
labels are removed, added, or replaced.
With regard to claims 10 and 17, from the disclosure of
Poland that an error condition packet is sent to the aisle
controller 26 which displays the correct aisle number in the
event tag computer receives an invalid aisle number, (col. 5,
lines 6-13), we find that Ahlm and Poland suggest an “error
condition mechanism (claim 10) or method (claim 17).”
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007