Appeal No. 2003-0124
Application No. 09/487,832
Independent claim 23 present in the reissue application is
reproduced as follows:
23. A security system to detect unauthorized removal of articles
from a restricted area such as a retail store, in which each
article carries a read/write tag, the security system comprising:
at least one point-of-sale or point-of authorization
apparatus arranged to write specific data into (or erase specific
data from) the tag to indicate that the article has been paid
for, or its removal has otherwise been authorized;
a detector apparatus for the or each exit of said restricted
area, said detector apparatus being arranged to read each tag to
determine if said specific data has been written into (or erased
from) the tag and otherwise to initiate an alarm; and
a refunds/returns detector apparatus arranged to read the
tag of each article presented to it and to determine if said
specific data has been written into (or erased from) the tag, and
to erase (or write in) said data so that the article can be
returned to stock.
Reference
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Anders et al. (Anders) 4,656,463 Apr. 7, 1987
Rejections at Issue
Claims 42-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on a non-enabling disclosure.
Claims 23-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Anders.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007