Appeal No. 2003-0158
Application No. 09/514,570
“payor identification” is then used to determine whether cash should be dispensed. In
conventional ATM machines, it is the amount of cash in a user’s account, and not the
identification of a payor of a deposited check, which determines whether cash will be
dispensed to the user. In this regard, DeBan appears to operate as a conventional
ATM, and there is no suggestion within DeBan that cash is dispensed based on the
identification of a payor in a payor database.
We have considered the examiner’s reliance on Barakai and Hoffman, in the
alternative, as a reason to modify DeBan in order to arrive at the claimed subject
matter, but we do not find that either of these two references supplies the noted
deficiency of DeBan. The examiner relies on Barakai’s storage, at RAM 28, local to
remote terminal 10, as having a database for validating a card that is inserted into the
card reader. The examiner then explains that Barakai uses two levels of checking the
card (see page 9 of the answer) and says that if the card is on the “black list,” further
verification would be required.
Assuming all that the examiner says about the operation of Barakai is true, we
still do not understand what would have led an artisan to take the teaching of a local
database in Barakai and apply that teaching to DeBan in order to place CPU 26 at the
site of DeBan’s ATM. Therefore, we do not agree with the examiner’s reasoning in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007