Appeal No. 1998-1117
Application No. 08/220,756
expected to use the solution that is claimed by the
Appellants.
However, "[o]bviousness may not be established using hindsight
or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor."
Para-Ordnance Mfg., 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing
W. L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-313.
In addition, our reviewing court requires the PTO to make
specific
findings on a suggestion to combine prior art references. In
re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 1000-01, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617-19
(Fed. Cir. 1999).
We agree with the Appellant that Ito does not teach a
cash handling mechanism that transports the counted currency
to a cash outlet port of a selected customer operation
station. However, the Examiner is not relying on Ito for this
limitation. The Examiner instead is relying on Yoshihiko.
The Examiner is relying on Ito’s teaching of the shared
printer has a reason for combinability of the Ito system with
the Yoshihiko teachings of a shared cash handling mechanism.
We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning on this point.
Furthermore, we wish to buttress his reasoning by pointing out
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007