Appeal No. 2003-0006
Application No. 09/099,546
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Further, our review of the Ness and Goodwin references reveals
that they are directed to different problems with different
solutions. In other words, while Ness discloses a system for
locating and tracking emergency vehicles, there is no teaching or
suggestion of using such a system in a transaction establishment,
let alone one using an electronic price labeling system as claimed.
Similarly, while Goodwin uses an electronic price labeling system
to locate problem price labels, there is no indication of any
suggestion to use the electronic price labeling in conjunction with
a paging system to locate and dispatch workers to address the
problem. Given the disparity of problems addressed by the applied
prior art references, and the differing solutions proposed by them,
it is our view that any attempt to combine them in the manner
proposed by the Examiner could only come from Appellant’s own
disclosure and not from any teaching or suggestion in the
references themselves.
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007