Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for U.S. Patent 5,602,377

This analysis evaluates the obviousness of the independent claims of U.S. Patent 5,602,377 in light of the prior art cited during its examination. An invention is considered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). As of the priority date of March 1, 1995, a PHOSITA in this field would likely have been an engineer or computer scientist with experience in bar code scanning systems, data processing, and enterprise inventory or point-of-sale systems.

The key innovation identified in the prior art analysis was the integration of a specific workflow: (1) scanning an existing bar code, (2) retrieving additional data from a remote database, (3) combining the two data sets, and (4) printing a new, updated 2D bar code. While no single prior art reference disclosed this entire sequence, the constituent elements were well-established. An obviousness argument can be constructed by combining references that teach these individual elements.

Primary Combination of References

A strong argument for obviousness can be made by combining:

• U.S. Patent 5,354,977 (Roustaei), which teaches a portable data-file system with a scanner and printer capable of reading a bar code, processing the data, and creating a new one.
• U.S. Patent 5,286,960 (Longacre, Jr., et al.), which discloses a system for generating high-density 2D bar code labels using data retrieved from a host computer.

Motivation to Combine

A person of ordinary skill in the art in 1995 would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Roustaei ('977) and Longacre ('960) to achieve a more efficient and powerful data management system. The problem being addressed by patent 5,602,377—the need to supplement a product's static manufacturer bar code with dynamic, transactional, or logistical data—was a known business challenge.

The Roustaei ('977) patent provides the core "scan-process-print" functionality in a portable terminal, demonstrating the desirability of mobile data manipulation. However, its reliance on data already within the bar code or the terminal's local memory is limiting. The Longacre ('960) patent addresses a similar need for data-rich labels but sources its data from a central host computer.

The motivation to combine these two systems would have been to enhance the portable terminal of Roustaei ('977) with the networked data-retrieval capabilities of Longacre ('960). A PHOSITA would recognize that for applications like inventory management, price updates, or tracking a product's journey through a supply chain, the most current and relevant "additional data" (e.g., price, shipping destination, customer ID) would reside in a central or remote database, not locally on a portable device. Combining the technologies would be a predictable solution to create a mobile system capable of generating labels with the most up-to-date, centrally managed information, directly at the point of activity (e.g., on the warehouse floor or at a point-of-sale). This would result in a system that performs precisely the workflow claimed in US 5,602,377.

Application to Independent Claims

Independent Claim 1: Method of providing a two-dimensional bar code dataform

• a) scanning the product's bar code dataform: This is explicitly taught by Roustaei ('977), which describes a terminal with a scanner for reading a bar code.
• b) decoding the dataform to generate decoded data: This is an inherent step in any bar code reading system, as taught by Roustaei ('977).
• c) selecting data to comprise the two dimensional bar code, the selected data including at least a portion of the decoded data and additional data related to the product: Roustaei ('977) teaches reading a bar code and processing the data to create a new one, which implies selecting the original data. Longacre ('960) teaches generating a label with data from a host computer, which constitutes "additional data." Combining these would involve selecting the initially scanned data (from Roustaei) and adding to it the remotely-retrieved data (from Longacre).
• d) encoding the selected data to produce the two dimensional bar code dataform: This step is taught by numerous references, including Longacre ('960) and U.S. Patent 4,874,936 (Allais), which are dedicated to encoding data into 2D formats.
• e) printing the two dimensional bar code dataform on a label to be attached to the product: This is explicitly taught by both Roustaei ('977), which describes a terminal with a printer, and Longacre ('960), which describes a system for generating labels.

Therefore, the combination of Roustaei ('977) and Longacre ('960) teaches all the steps of claim 1.

Independent Claim 8: Method of generating a two-dimensional bar code dataform

This claim is substantially similar to claim 1 but adds the explicit step of storing the decoded data in memory before retrieving it for use in the new bar code. This is a fundamental and necessary step in any computer-based data processing task. The Roustaei ('977) system, being a microprocessor-based terminal, would inherently perform this function of storing scanned data in memory (RAM) before processing. This would have been an obvious and routine design choice for a PHOSITA. Therefore, the combination of Roustaei ('977) and Longacre ('960) would also render the method of claim 8 obvious.

Independent Claim 14: Bar code scanning and labeling apparatus

• a) a microprocessor including data selection circuitry: This is a standard component of the terminal described in Roustaei ('977).
• b) a scan engine: Explicitly part of the apparatus in Roustaei ('977).
• c) encoding/decoding circuitry: An inherent component of any bar code scanning and printing system, as taught by Roustaei ('977) and detailed in patents like Allais ('936).
• d) interface means (keypad, etc.): A standard component of a portable data terminal like that in Roustaei ('977).
• e) communication means...for receiving data from a remote device: This element is not the primary focus of Roustaei ('977) but is central to Longacre ('960), which describes retrieving data from a host computer. A PHOSITA, motivated to enhance the Roustaei terminal, would look to known methods for data communication (e.g., radio frequency, as was becoming common for warehouse terminals in the mid-1990s) to implement the data retrieval taught by Longacre ('960). Integrating such communication means into a portable terminal would have been an obvious design step.
• f) data storage means (memory): A fundamental component of the microprocessor-based terminal in Roustaei ('977).
• g) printing means: Explicitly taught by Roustaei ('977).

By modifying the portable apparatus of Roustaei ('977) to include the remote data-retrieval capability taught by Longacre ('960), a PHOSITA would arrive at the apparatus described in claim 14.

Conclusion

The independent claims of U.S. Patent 5,602,377 would likely be rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by a combination of U.S. Patent 5,354,977 and U.S. Patent 5,286,960. Roustaei ('977) provides the blueprint for a portable scan-and-print device, while Longacre ('960) teaches the inclusion of remotely-sourced data onto a printed bar code label. The motivation to combine these teachings—to create a more powerful, networked, and mobile labeling system—would have been apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to solve known problems in inventory and supply chain management. The result of this combination is a system and method that reads, modifies, and reprints bar codes using centralized data, which is the core of the invention claimed in U.S. Patent 5,602,377.