Appeal No. 2003-0124
Application No. 09/487,832
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'"
as recited in Appellants claim 23.
The Examiner argues that Anders teaches
in the context of a retail store (Fig. 26), Anders et
al disclose a 'point-of-sale apparatus' or cash
register 319 which is 'connected to the department
store's central AT data bank' (col. 37, lines 12-13),
for writing or erasing 'specific data' on the tag
(i.e., the tag and article will be delet(ed) from
inventory,'" col. 37, line 20) to permit its removal
from the store. [See page 4 of the final rejection].
Upon our review of Anders, we fail to find that Anders
teaches
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 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.
Upon our review of Anders, we find that Anders teaches that the
inventory of the items are maintained in a central location.
1212
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007