Appeal No. 2005-2622 Page 5
Application No. 09/923,089
panels 12 and 26. . . ." Id. at ll. 13-19. "It should be understood that the processor
unit 32 controls . . . the information displayed on the displays 20 and 28. . . ." Id. at
ll. 21-24. The processor unit 32 outputs different user interfaces to the user's display 20
and the operator's display 28. Items output to the user's display 20 include
"[i]nstructions," col. 2, l. 65, a "request[ ] to enter a personal identification number
(PIN)," id. at 66-67, "a menu of the various facilities available to the user," col. 3, ll. 3-4,
and a "request[ ] to enter the sum required. . . ." Id. at ll. 5-6. Items output to the
operator's display 28 include "a menu of the various maintenance procedure options,
including a REPLENISH option," col. 5, ll. 61-63 and a "request[ ] to input data
concerning the full cassettes 40 to be inserted in the ATM. . . ." Col. 6, ll. 42-43.
Although the processor unit 32 outputs different user interfaces to the user's display 20
and to the operator's display 28 and responds to input signals from the user's card
reader 14 and key pad 16 and from the operator's key pad 27, it is uncontested that the
reference does not mention determining whether each of the card reader 14, the key
pad 16, and the key pad 27, is a mouse or a set of function keys.
Of course, "[a]n anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what
is in the claims. Anticipation can occur when a claimed limitation is 'inherent' . . . in the
relevant reference." Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 953 F2d 1360, 1369, 21
USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing Tyler Refrigeration v. Kysor Indus. Corp.,
777 F.2d 687, 689, 227 USPQ 845, 846-47 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). "To establish inherency,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007