Appeal No. 2006-1525
Application No. 10/221,694
answer (mailed January 4, 2006) and supplemental answer (mailed March 9, 2006) for
the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (filed November 7,
2005) and reply brief (filed February 27, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations that follow.
Claims 1-15, 17, 18 and 20-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
unpatentable as anticipated by Wennersten.
The appellants argue that Wennersten fails to show 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 [See Brief at p. 4]. The examiner responds that Wennersten's
apparatus is inherently structured to perform Applicant's claimed methods because the
information of what denomination and where each piece of currency is placed is
available for use in either accounting for the total amount in the machine or the total
amount given out or placing a particular denomination in a particular part of the store, or
any other accounting or store management requirement and that Wennersten discloses
segregating banknotes by denomination at col. 1 , lines 40-44 and col. 2, lines 30-35,
and transfer of banknotes from the drum magazine to a storage cassette in lines 54-62.
[See Answer at p. 7].
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007