Appeal No. 2004-0023
Application No. 09/334,574
a customer’s articles to be dry cleaned are physically grouped
and are tagged with coded identification. After processing, the
coded tags on the articles are scanned and reassembled into
groups corresponding to the original grouping with an indicator
light arrangement to “verify” that a group has successfully been
reassembled.
We further find no error in the conclusion reached in our
prior decision that the lighting indicator arrangement 92, 94 in
Markman provides a “positive” indication that a scanned item does
not belong in a particular grouped order. Although we don’t
necessarily agree or disagree with Appellant’s contention that
the system of Markman would not provide any positive indication
that an item was incorrectly placed when working on plural lots
with mixed groups, the simple fact remains that there is nothing
in the claim language directed to mixed lots and groups.
With respect to claims 3, 4, and 7, Appellant contends that
the Board erred in their analysis of Markman since, in
Appellant’s view, “. . . . Markman does not utilize a system that
possess [sic] ‘unique sequential identifications’ whether in the
form of bar codes and or machine readable text.” (Request, page
5). We do not agree. As discussed in our prior decision, the
tags illustrated in Figure 3 of Markman are unmistakably
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007