Appeal No. 2003-1866
Application 08/839,361
wherein the displayed charging information is visually
compared to the printed charging information in order to confirm
the charging information.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Kristy 5,218,455 Jun. 08, 1993
Parulski et al. (Parulski) 5,270,831 Dec. 14, 1993
Fredlund et al. (Fredlund) 5,666,215 Sep. 09, 1997
(filed Aug. 03, 1995)
Yamamoto 5,715,034 Feb. 03, 1998
(filed Dec. 20, 1995)
Truc et al. 5,872,591 Feb. 16, 1999
(filed Feb. 21, 1996)
Claims 9-27, 32-37 and 40-43, all of the appealed claims,
stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).1 As evidence of
obviousness, the Examiner offers Kristy in view of Yamamoto with
respect to claims 13-27, adds Fredlund to the basic combination
with respect to claims 9-12, 32, 33, 41, and 43, adds Truc to the
basic combination with respect to claim 37, and adds Parulski to
the basic combination with respect to claim 40. In a separate
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 34-36 and 42 stand
finally rejected as being unpatentable over Kristy in view of
Truc.
1 As indicated in the Advisory Office action mailed July 19, 2002, Paper
No. 28, the Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
rejection of claims 34 and 42.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007