Appeal Number: 2006-2607
Application Number: 10/004,738
1 This appeal arises from the Examiner’s final rejection, mailed April 6, 2005.
2 The Appellants filed an Appeal Brief in support of the appeal on September 29,
3 2005, and the Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief on
4 December 20, 2005. A Reply Brief was filed on January 17, 2006. A
5 Supplemental Examiner’s Answer was mailed on May 8, 2006. A second Reply
6 Brief was filed on June 5, 2006.
7 PRIOR ART
8 The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
9 appealed claims are:
10 Watanabe US 4,733,765 Mar. 29, 1988
11 Richardson US 6,028,764 Feb. 22, 2000
12 Amos US 6,554,184 B1 Apr. 29, 2003
13 (filed May 5, 2000)
14 Amos shows a network of cash machines into which coins and bills may be
15 deposited or withdrawn. Amos’ network may include a wireless component.
16 Watanabe shows a cash machine which ensures that bills and coins are not placed
17 in the wrong device and that sorts coins and bills placed therein. Richardson is
18 evidence of the notoriety of several modes of wireless communication and that
19 wireless communication is an art recognized mode of linking two physically
20 separate devices for data transfer.
21 REJECTIONS
22 We first note that the Examiner has referred, only indirectly to the prior Office
23 action without fully restating the point relied on in the Answer, contrary to the
24 requirements of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1207.02.
25 Even more problematic, the Examiner did not even set forth the reasoning behind
26 the rejection in that final Office action, but only set forth two actions prior to that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013