Appeal No. 1998-1969 Page 8
Application No. 08/535,708
the side in which the customer places the coins, actuates the
dispensing mechanism, and receives the dispensed publication).
From this teaching of Crawford it is our view that one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
would have provided the front panel of Hotaling's newspaper
vending machine (i.e., the panel shown in Figure 1 of Hotaling
having the coin-controlled mechanism chamber 22, the handle
20, and the dispensing opening 1) with a window through which
the newspaper may be viewed prior to sale. In addition, we
note that the appellant has not provided any evidence that
would support his allegation that it is not apparent how one
would install a window from Crawford into the device of
Hotaling. Moreover, it is our opinion that in view of
Crawford's teachings one of ordinary skill in the art would
have made the front panel of Hotaling transparent to permit
the newspaper to be viewed prior to sale as suggested and
taught by Crawford's window 38.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 13 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007