Appeal 2006-1160
Application 10/155,453
IV. OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS
"Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next
inquiry is whether the subject matter would have been obvious." Ex Parte
Massingill, No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *3 (B.P.A.I 2004). "In
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima
facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person
of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, Stinson "provides automated check cashing through an
unmanned check-cashing apparatus." (Col. 1, ll. 46-47.) The "automated
check-cashing unit 100, [is] also referred to as a point-of-sale ('POS') unit,"
(col. 5, ll. 14-15), and "includes a check reader 130 into which the
customer's check is inserted for processing." (Id. ll. 23-25.) "[T]he check-
cashing unit 100 is controlled by a processor 300." (Id. ll. 50-51.) For
example, "[u]sing a database loaded from a storage device 320 into
memory 325, the processor verifies the customer's identity and determines
whether the processor is authorized to cash the customer's check." (Col. 5,
l. 65 – col. 6, l. 1.)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013