Appeal No. 2003-1402
Application No. 09/034,969
remote communications unit is proximate said order receipt
location; and
iv) identify the order at the order receipt location associated with
the remote communications unit of the customer who placed
the order at the order entry user interface of the fuel dispenser
and provide said output indicating the customer who placed
the order is at the order receipt location.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Smith 5,327,066 Jul. 5, 1994
Theimer et al. (Theimer) 5,627,517 May 6, 1997
(filed Nov. 1, 1995)
Bustos 5,816,443 Oct. 6, 1998
(filed Dec. 12, 1995)
Claims 1-33 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting over claims contained in several U.S. patents; i.e., over claims 1-
40 of U.S. 5,798,931, over claims 1-15 of U.S. 6,073,840, over claims 1-51 of U.S.
6,169,938 B1; over claims 1-15 of U.S. 6,157,871; over claims 1-51 of U.S. 6,116,505,
over claims 1-33 of U.S. 6,098,879, over claims 1-26 of U.S. 6,078,896, over claims 1-
114 of U.S. 6,078,888, over claims 1-36 of U.S. 6,089,284, over claims 1-19 of U.S.
6,185,307 B1, over claims 1-29 of U.S. 6,263,319 B1, over claims 1-20 of U.S.
6,070,156, over claims 1-8 of U.S. 6,026,868, over claims 1-39 of U.S. 6,184,846 B1,
and over claims 1-39 of U.S. 6,176,421 B1.
Claims 1-10, 14, 15, 17-19, 25, 26, and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Smith.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007