Appeal No. 2003-0124
Application No. 09/487,832
to set out and circumscribe a particular area for the reasonable
degree of precision and particularity.
The Examiner also rejects claim 31 because the language
"said identity code read from the respective tag" and "said
point-of-sale read/write means" lacks proper antecedent basis.
We also note the Appellants have not argued otherwise.
Upon our review, we find that claim 31 does fail to set
forth the proper antecedent basis for "said identity code read
from the respective tag" and "said point-of-sale read/write
means." It appears to us that the problem is that claim 31
should depend from claim 30 rather than claim 28. Therefore, we
will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 23-30 and 32-
45 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. However, we will
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
The Examiner has rejected claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Anders. Appellants have argued
that Anders does not teach that the data is written to or removed
from the tag on the item. See page 13 of the brief.
Upon our careful review of Anders, we fail to find that
Anders teaches "at least one point-of-sale or point-of-
1111
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007