Appeal No. 2002-0574
Application No. 09/144,949
The motivation for combining the teachings of O’Connor
with the teachings of Sundelin, is to allow the system
as taught by Sundelin to be used with “normal” items
and also with items sold by unit of weight and even
items sold per piece. From the teachings of O’Connor,
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would have easily recognized that this adds
versatility to the system as taught by Sundelin, by
allowing the system to identify and retrieve prices for
items no matter how they are sold, thereby increasing
the appeal of the system to merchants (prospective
buyers of the system).
With respect to appellants’ argument concerning displaying only
unit price information for random weight items, we also agree
with the examiner’s statement (answer, page 11) that “at the time
of 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” (emphasis added). If the total price is unknown for a item
sold by weight, then appellants’ disclosed and claimed electronic
price label is only doing what comes naturally, namely, leaving
blank the total price portion of the electronic price label.
Based upon the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007