Appeal No. 2006-1525
Application No. 10/221,694
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a method for replenishing currency in a
machine. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1. A method of controlling the replenishment of a currency store which
can be filled to capacity in variable proportions of currency items of
different denominations and which can dispense currency items of
selected denominations received during multiple transactions, the method
comprising determining whether or not to send a currency item to an
available location in the store in dependence upon the denomination of
that currency item and the level of at least one denomination currently
stored in the store, wherein a currency item of a different denomination
can instead be subsequently sent to said location and the proportions of
different denominations in the store can thus be controlled.
PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Smeets et al. (Smeets) 4,836,825 June 6, 1989
Wennersten et al. (Wennersten) 6,213,310 April 10, 2001
(eff. filing August 5, 1999)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-15, 17, 18 and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
unpatentable as anticipated by Wennersten.
Claims 1-16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as
obvious over Smeets.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007