Appeal No. 2002-0574
Application No. 09/144,949
the invention it was well known to those of ordinary skill in the
art to provide a display that displays only unit price
information (for example: price displays in a produce section
showing price/pound of a particular produce such as apples,
onions, strawberries, etc.) since a total price is unknown, as
different customers will select different amounts (weight) of the
item.” The examiner is of the opinion (answer, page 6) that “it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to modify the system and method, as
taught by Sundelin as modified by O’Connor, to display only unit
price information, and to clear a total price portion of the
display, in order to display the correct price of a unit of a
random weight item, as the total weight of the item selected by a
particular customer is unknown.”
Appellants argue (brief, page 10) that:
The cited references . . . fail to provide a
motivation for combining identification of random
weight items as taught by O’Connor with the electronic
price label system of Sundelin. Also, the cited
references fail to provide a motivation for adding the
step of sending a message to display only unit price
information to EPLs following identification of random
weight items.
Appellants’ arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, we
agree with the examiner’s statement (answer, page 10) that:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007