Appeal No. 1998-1117
Application No. 08/220,756
teaches that the mechanical components for each dispenser to
operate independently is provided and no elements are shared
unless the element is inoperative.
We note that Appellant’s independent claim 2 recites an
automated teller machine comprising: at least three customer
operation stations operable independent of one another; at
least two cash handling mechanisms wherein the number of cash
handling mechanisms is fewer in number than said customer
operation stations . . . a controller for determining if one
of the cash handling mechanism fails and for controlling each
functional cash handling mechanism to respond to said
customers’ request normally handled by said failed cash
handling mechanism. We note that the scope of claim 2
requires at least three customer operation stations and at
least two cash handling mechanisms operable to serve these
cash handling mechanisms.
We fail to find that the prior art suggests using two
cash handling mechanisms and at least three customer operation
stations. We agree that the combination of Ito and Yoshihiko
teach the use of one cash handling mechanism serving multiple
customer operation stations. However, the Examiner has failed
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007