Appeal No. 1998-1117
Application No. 08/220,756
After careful review of the evidence before us, we agree
with the Examiner that claim 1 is properly rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103. However, we do not agree with the Examiner that
claim 2 is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we
will sustain the rejection of claim 1 but we will reverse the
rejection of claim 2 for the reasons set forth infra.
On pages 8 and 9 of the brief, Appellant argues that the
proposed combination under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of Ito and
Yoshihiko does not disclose or suggest Appellant’s invention
as recited in claim 1. In particular, Appellant argues that
Ito does not suggest a shared mechanical device mechanically
coupled to any of the ATMs to provide an output to a customer
at a selected one of ATMs. Appellant does not believe that
sending of multiple electrical signals to a remote device to
record all of the signals teaches or suggests sharing of a
mechanical device which physically provides an outlet to a
customer at a selected customer service station as Appellant’s
invention provides. Specifically, Appellant points to claim 1
language requiring “transporting the counted currency to a
cash outlet port of a selected customer operation station.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007