Appeal No. 2002-1151
Application No. 09/324,835
Clearly, the Oshita reference contemplates additional change
boxes when a determination is made that a customer’s coins would
not fit into a single change box. The difficulty, however, that
we have with the anticipation rejection before us is that there
is no certainty from the reference itself as to what carries out
the aforementioned determination process.4 The determination
alternatives are manifestly either a determination made by the
operator or a determination effected by the control element 27.
Since it is entirely speculative as to whether the discussed
determination is achieved by an operator or the control system of
Oshita, the applied document is not a sound anticipatory
reference.5 It is for this reason that the rejection of
appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) cannot be sustained.
4
4 As the overall reference reveals, the change-preparing
operation is not entirely automated. The operator and the control
element 27 individually perform many functions.
5
5 It is worthy of contrasting the noted uncertainty in the
reference with the clarity of disclosure regarding the change box
weight comparison carried out by the control element
(translation, pages 8 and 9, paragraph [0008]).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007