Appeal No. 1998-1969 Page 7
Application No. 08/535,708
workings of the machine while the customer uses an outer arm
to control an inner arm to grasp an item in the magazine and
move it to a dispensing chute as set forth in claims 13 to
15). This argument is not persuasive that any error in the
determination regarding the obviousness of the claimed subject
matter has occurred. As long as some motivation or suggestion
to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken
as a whole, the law does not require that the references be
combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor. See In
re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir.
1990)(en banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) and In re
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
The appellant next argues (brief, pp. 7-8) that it is not
apparent how one would install a window from Crawford into the
device of Hotaling. In addition, the appellant states that
"it would be logical to put the window of Crawford on the side
of the enclosure opposite the dispensing handle." We do not
agree. Crawford clearly teaches providing the window to view
the publication at the front side of the vending unit (i.e.,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007