Appeal No. 2003-0006
Application No. 09/099,546
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 7-10, as well as
claims 2-6 and 11-15 dependent thereon, is not sustained.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness-type double
patenting rejection of appealed claims 1-15 based on the
combination of claims 1-20 of the Goodwin patent (U.S. Patent No.
5,818,346) and Ness. In making this rejection, the Examiner has
looked to Ness to supply the worker dispatching and locating
features missing from the electronic price labeling invention set
forth in the claims of the Goodwin patent. For all of the reasons
discussed supra, however, the Examiner has not established proper
motivation for combining the dispatching and locating system of
Ness with the teachings of an electronic price labeling system used
in a transaction establishment. Further, even assuming, arguendo,
that such a combination could be made, there is no indication that
the resulting system would satisfy the specific combination set
forth in the appealed claims.
In summary, we have not sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) and obviousness-type double patenting rejections of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007