Appeal No. 1998-1117
Application No. 08/220,756
printer must properly process requests from the two separate
automatic cash transaction machines. In particular, Ito
discloses that the requests are each stored in memory as they
are generated and then are processed in the order in which
they have been received. We find from this teaching of Ito
that those skilled in the art would recognize that the
controller for the cash handling mechanism must process
concurrent requests in a proper manner by using the Ito’s
controller to process these requests in the priority as
disclosed.
We note that Appellant has not made any further arguments
as to claim 1, therefore, we find that the Appellant has not
pointed out an error in the Examiner’s establishment of a
prima facie case. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s
decision of rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. §
103, Appellant argues on pages 10 through 12 of the brief that
the proposed combination of Ito, Yoshihiko and Granzow does
not disclose or suggest having a normal operation less than
all of the cash handling mechanisms to route cash to selected
outlet stations. Appellant further points out that Granzow
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007