Appeal No. 1998-0941 Page 9
Application No. 08/226,660
bill." This limitation appears to conflict with the appellants'
application (see Figure 8 and pp. 27-28) which provides that in
some instances the denomination of the scanned bill cannot be
determined resulting in a "no call" code. Furthermore, it
appears from the application (see Figure 8A and pp. 30-34) that
the means set forth in the last paragraph of claims 20, 43 and 65
is responsive to this "no call" code rather than the means which
determines the denomination of "each scanned bill." The examiner
should determine whether these possible problems cause any of the
claims under appeal to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
20-34 and 43-72 under the judicially created doctrine of double
patenting over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 5,295,196 is reversed.
In addition, the application has been remanded to the examiner to
determine whether or not the claims under appeal comply with the
requirements of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
REVERSED; REMANDED
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007