Appeal No. 1997-3968
Application No. 08/318,914
would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to substitute a
debit/credit card for cash, we must nevertheless agree with
the appellant (Brief, page 30) that:
The Examiner concedes that the conventional
offering plate does not have a card reader. The
Examiner must also concede that the conventional
offering plate is not electronic, nor is it self-
powered, nor does it have applicant’s routine as
recited. The Examiner further admits that even if
unrelated, diverse, and non-analogous art sources
are combined (the conventional offering plate art .
. . and the vending machine, toll booth, train
ticket art (Teicher)), Applicant’s claimed method
and the device which enables the method are not
taught or suggested. The Examiner looks to yet
another unrelated and non-analogous source of art,
Kumar (the portable supermarket cash register art),
for alleged teachings therefrom. This still does
not make out a prima facie case of obviousness
because all of the elements of the device, including
Applicant’s routines, which enable the Applicant’s
method are not in the alleged combination of
teachings from unrelated and non-analogous sources
of art.
In summary, the obviousness rejection is reversed because
we agree with appellant’s argument (Reply Brief, page 4) that
“[t]he Examiner has conducted a text book case of hindsight
reconstruction of the Applicant’s method and apparatus using
alleged teachings of at least two of three unrelated, diverse,
non-analogous sources of art.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007