Appeal No. 1997-3968
Application No. 08/318,914
advantageous than cash because it “minimizes costs and hazards
associated with cash usage” (column 8, line 57 through column
9, line 1), and the commonly known prior art, the examiner is
of the opinion that “it would have been obvious to modernize
and update the conventional offering plate so as to be able to
process debit/credit cards as well as receive cash
contributions as taught by Teicher” (Answer, page 6). Kumar
discloses a portable, battery-powered, hand-held terminal
device 10 that can read credit cards (Figure 1; column 3,
lines 39 through 47). In view of Kumar’s teachings, the
examiner contends that (Answer, pages 7 and 8):
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to integrate such an old and well known portable
electronic device/terminal to a conventional
offering plate as modified by commonly known prior
art procedures in view of the teachings of Teicher,
due to the fact that Kumar’s electronic
device/terminal is portable, feasible, compact, and
mostly to provide the conventional offering plate
with the latest technology which accepts both credit
cards as well as cash contributions. Clearly, one
of ordinary skill would recognize the convenience
and benefits of using credit cards instead of cash
in any application. As noted above, the
conventional offering plate is employed to accept a
plurality of successive contribution transactions.
The routine controlling the terminal of Kumar
accepts successive transactions as well.
Notwithstanding our agreement with the examiner that it
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007