Appeal No. 1999-1536 Page 8
Application No. 08/938,592
number of a particular coin denomination has been counted, we also note that residual coins
collected in the overflow receptacle remain unsorted. As we see it, one of ordinary skill in the
art aware of the teachings of both Ristvedt and Black would have appreciated that provision of
a diverter or shunting mechanism in one or more of the coin paths defined by the fittings 206
and tubes 208 of Ristvedt as taught by Black to divert coins to a second collection bag for the
same denomination coin would have offered the additional advantage of permitting residual
coins to continue to be sorted while the full bag is replaced with an empty bag. Accordingly,
in our opinion, the combined teachings of Ristvedt and Black would have been prima facie
sufficient to have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to provide such a shunting
mechanism in the Ristvedt apparatus, either in addition to or in place of the solenoid 136 for
raising the pins 114a-114f to stop sorting and divert residual coins to the overflow receptacle,
to attain this advantage.
Having concluded, for the reasons discussed above, that the teachings of the applied
references are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter of2
claim 49, we recognize that evidence of secondary considerations, such as that presented by
appellants in this application, must be considered en route to an ultimate determination of
2Like the Court in In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992), we
recognize that the concept of a "prima facie" case of obviousness is a procedural tool of patent examination which
allocates the burdens of going forward as between the examiner and the appellants, and that the determinative issue
regarding patentability in this, and any case based on obviousness, is whether the record as a whole, by a
preponderance of the evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument and secondary evidence,
supports the legal conclusion that the invention claimed would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007