Appeal No. 2003-0158
Application No. 09/514,570
not require that the database be all inclusive and that every conceivable payor be in the
database. Claim 36 requires “the first storage device including a database of payor
information.” The storage device 66 of DeBan may, indeed, be considered to include “a
database of payor information,” albeit not a database containing every conceivable
payor, because, as admitted by appellants, it is possible that the payor of a check could
also be a customer of the bank. Thus, in this respect, the language of the claim is met
by DeBan’s disclosure.
However, even with this being the case, DeBan is deficient in suggesting what is
claimed. Claim 36 requires the reader to receive the negotiable instrument and to
obtain therefrom, “information identifying a payor of the negotiable instrument.” Then,
in conjunction with the database of payor information, a processor determines whether
cash should be dispensed, based on the payor identifying information.
In DeBan, while a MICR reader, 34 for example, may read the negotiable
instrument, DeBan does not identify a payor from that data. And, to the extent that one
might say that the reader identifies an account, or a monetary value for which the check
is drawn, this does not appear to identify a “payor,” as claimed. Even if we were to say
that the MICR reader is able to identify an account, and therefor, a “payor,” where a
payor may be a customer of the bank, there is no evidence in DeBan that any such
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007