Appeal No. 2000-0229
Application No. 08/603,005 Page 15
With regard to claim 13, we find that although the specific
term “management software” is not used in Poland, we find that
the software controlling the price display system of figure 1
constitutes “electronic price label display management software
for use with a large plurality of electronic price labels”
because the software controls the price display system.
From all of the above, we sustain the rejection of claims 1,
2, and 5-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We turn next to the rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers
Ahlm considered with Poland and Hellsberg. We begin with claim
3. We make reference to the examiner’s answer (pages 5 and 8)
for the examiner's’s position.
Appellants asserts (brief, page 9) that:
Hellsberg discloses a price tag reader which can read
a code by detecting labels or apertures in the tag.
As shown in Hellsberg’s Fig. 1, a tag reader for reading
price tags is fed manually with tags. Prices are then
automatically read into a cash register. This teaching
is unrelated to electronic price label systems which
operate in conjunction with different types of auxiliary
labels.
Claim 3 recites that “the auxiliary display recorders comprise a
number of photosensors, wherein the indicators comprise a number
of apertures up to the number of photosensors through which light
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007