Appeal No. 1998-1969 Page 6
Application No. 08/535,708
In applying the test for obviousness, we reach the 3
conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have
provided the front panel of Hotaling's newspaper vending
machine (i.e., the panel shown in Figure 1 of Hotaling) with a
window through which the newspaper may be viewed prior to sale
as suggested and taught by Crawford's window 38 thereby
arriving at the method of dispensing items as recited in
claims 13 and 14 and the dispensing device as recited in
claims 15 and 16.
The arguments advanced by the appellant in the brief are
unpersuasive for the following reasons.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 7-9) that Crawford does
not teach or suggest a window having the purpose of the
present window (i.e., to permit the customer to view the inner
3The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007