Appeal No. 2006-0518
Application No. 10/358,615
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 5.
Higashiyama teaches that it was known to write on a check and a
roll receipt as part of a point of sale terminal. We agree with
the examiner that it would have been obvious to integrate known
features into the point of sale device of Templeton to obtain the
individual benefits of each of the features. As noted above, the
arguments related to counter space are not material to the
invention as broadly claimed.
With respect to claim 22, in addition to the arguments
considered above, appellants argue that the examiner’s conclusion
of the obviousness of printing a money order is unsupported by
the prior art [brief, page 9]. The examiner responds that
printing a money order would have been obvious because a money
order is an art recognized equivalent of a check [answer, page
28].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 22.
Even if the examiner were correct that a check and a money order
are art recognized equivalents, the cited prior art would only
suggest that a money order could be read by the Templeton/Funk
device. There is no teaching of printing a check or money order
by the applied prior art.
With respect to the rejection of claim 8 based on Templeton,
Funk and Hills, and the rejection of claim 10 based on Templeton,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007