Appeal No. 2007-0673
Application No. 09/847,794
Rejection at Issue
Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Latimer in view of Berkson and Nashner. The Examiner’s
rejection is set forth on pages 3 through 14 of the Answer. Throughout the
opinion we make reference to the Brief (received February 9, 2006) and the
Answer (mailed April 3, 2006) for the respective details thereof.
Issues
Appellant argues that the combination of the references does not teach
or suggest displaying, to a cashier, a performance goal for a work session or
displaying the cashier’s measured performance over the work session, as
recited in independent claims 1 and 11.
The Examiner in response contends that the rejection is proper. The
Examiner states that Latimer teaches a system and method for providing real
time performance feedback to cashiers. Further, the Examiner states that it
is well known to provide people with a performance goal prior to
performance of the operation for which the target goal has been set.
Thus, the issue presented to us is whether the art applied by the
Examiner teaches or suggests displaying, to a cashier, a performance goal
for a work session or displaying the cashier’s measured performance over
the work session.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013