Appeal No. 2006-1525
Application No. 10/221,694
While all that the examiner states concerning the teachings of Wennersten are so,
none of what the examiner presents from Wennersten describes 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. We find nothing in Wennersten that relies on the level of at least
one denomination currently stored in the store to decide whether a currency item goes
to a particular location. As to the examiner’s argument that Wennersten is configured to
provide such a function, the examiner has shown no programming that would cause the
configuration to operate as claimed in this way. Therefore, we find the examiner’s
arguments unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15, 17, 18 and
20-22 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable as anticipated by
Wennersten.
Claims 1-16 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable as
obvious over Smeets.
The appellants argue that Smeets 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 it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to segregate coins by denomination. [See
Answer at p. 7]. We note that not only would it have been obvious to do so, Smeets
anticipates this particular feature, but this is not the claim limitation. The claim limitation
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007