Appeal No. 2000-0229
Application No. 08/603,005 Page 17
price tags and would be motivated to replace the bar code labels
of Ahlm with hole codes. We are cognizant that the hole code
tags of Hellsberg are fed into the reader before being read,
however, claim 3, as broadly drafted, does not preclude an
auxiliary display tag having hole codes which are fed to the
reader, in contrast to an auxiliary display having a type
designation that is placed on the reader, as in Ahlm and Poland.
We therefore find that the examiner has established a prima facie
case of obviousness of claim 3 which has not been successfully
rebutted by appellants. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
We turn next to claim 4. Appellants refer (brief, page 6)
to “push button switches employed as auxiliary display recorders”
as an “additional subject matter grouping” under the heading of
“Grouping of Claims” but do not present any specific arguments
with respect to the claim.
Claim 4 recites that “wherein the auxiliary display
recorders comprise a number of push button switches; wherein the
indicators comprise a number of apertures up to the number of
push button switches through which push button switches protrude
to provide the signal.” The examiner’s position (answer, page 5)
is that “[i]t further would have been obvious to have included a
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007