Appeal No. 2003-1866
Application 08/839,361
To address the claimed fee charging features, the Examiner
relies on Yamamoto and, in particular, directs attention (Answer,
page 9) to the illustration in Figure 21 of Yamamoto along with
the accompanying description beginning at column 23, line 49.
According to the Examiner, Yamamoto’s bar code reader 231
corresponds to the claimed charging information transmitting
device, while the display 232 corresponds to the claimed charging
information receiving device where the displayed price is
visually compared to printed charging information on the
information card J.
In response, Appellants assert (Brief, pages 8 and 9) that
the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness since the features relied on in Yamamoto do not
correspond to those as claimed. After reviewing the Yamamoto
reference, we are in agreement with Appellants’ position as
stated in the Brief. In particular, we agree that Yamamoto’s bar
code reader and register do not satisfy the claimed limitations
since these devices are separate from and are not included within
the image printing device as specifically set forth in each of
the independent claims 13, 18, and 23.
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007