Appeal No. 1999-2243
Application 08/567,081
We agree with both of these arguments. As to (a),
the examiner asserts that "[i]t would be possible for a tray
cart
that carried items for sale would need a cash tray to do
business" (answer, page 6). However, this assumes that John-
son's cart carries items for sale, but there is no disclosure
in Johnson that it does. The fact that it would be possible7
to use a cash tray on Johnson's cart is not a sufficient
basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to do so,
it being well settled that "[t]he mere fact that the prior art
may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does
not make the modification obvious unless the prior art sug-
gested the desirability of the modification." In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). We do not consider that Pike's disclosure of a
cash receptacle 62 in a casino cart, which is used in a casino
to provide gamblers, especially those playing slot machines,
7Since Johnson is a design patent, the only description
of the item shown in the drawings is that it is a "tray cart."
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007