Appeal No. 2003-0158
Application No. 09/514,570
While we have reversed the rejection for the reasons supra, we do note that
Appellants argue that claim 36 requires that the database of payor information be
“local” to the apparatus for dispensing cash and that DeBan’s storage device 66 is not
local to the ATM and is, therefore, not local to the cash dispenser.
The examiner agrees with appellants’ assessment of the non-locality of DeBan’s
database storage device and relied on Barakai for this teaching. We do not find the
examiner’s reasoning in this regard to be convincing. However, we believe that DeBan,
alone, would have suggested this “locality” limitation.
While DeBan appears to show, in Figure 2, that storage 66, in CPU 26, is not
local to ATM 12, because there is a communications link between CPU 26 and ATM 12,
the artisan would have understood that storage 66 (as well as CPU 26) may, equally
obviously, be placed at any location, including at the ATM. Moreover, the artisan would
have understood that a showing of a communication link between CPU 26 and ATM 12
in DeBan does not preclude the CPU 26 from being situated locally, i.e., at the site of
ATM 12. A communication link, in and of itself, does not mean that CPU 26 must be
located remotely from the ATM and the artisan would have understood, quite clearly, in
our view, that the physical location of the CPU 26 might be determined by any of a
number of considerations, including availability, space considerations, or other
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007