Appeal Number: 2006-2607
Application Number: 10/004,738
1 ISSUES
2 The issues pertinent to this appeal are
3 • Whether the phrases “for processing notes including sorting,” “for
4 processing coins including sorting,” and “are brought together,” in claim 15
5 are indefinite.
6 • Whether the prior art motivates the combination of the applied art.
7 • Whether the art applied shows
8 o wireless communication between two cash machines
9 o local network with a range of about 100 meters controlling
10 communication between two cash machines
11 o a second network connected to the internet, LAN, or WAN
12 o wireless technology relying on infrared, Bluetooth, piconet or a
13 frequency hopping, spread spectrum range of frequencies in the range
14 of 2.4 to 2.56 GHz.
15 o two cash devices operating in a master-slave mode.
16 In particular, the Appellants contend that the claim 15 phrases the Examiner
17 indicated as unclear are not indefinite (Br. 13-17), that the three references applied
18 against the claims are disparate and therefore would not have been combined (Br.
19 8-9), that Amos’s network would span a much larger range than the 100 meters in
20 the claim (Br. 9-10), that the claim 15 subject matter calls for a more simple
21 network than Amos (Br. 10), that only the inventors recognized the need for a local
22 system handling plural cash machines wirelessly (Br. 11), and that the art fails to
23 show the subject matter added by the dependent claims (Br. 11-13).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013