Appeal Number: 2006-2607
Application Number: 10/004,738
1 not render claim 15 or the claims depending therefrom indefinite. Accordingly, we
2 do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-9 and 15-21 under 35 U.S.C.
3 § 112, second paragraph, as rendering the claimed subject matter indefinite.
4
5 Claims 2-9 and 15-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Amos,
6 Watanabe, and Richardson.
7 As regards independent claim 15, the above facts show that Amos describes a
8 cash management system; a first cash handling device for processing notes
9 including sorting of notes, totaling of notes received, and communicating note
10 totals to at least one of: a second cash handling device, a visual display and
11 communication through a network, wherein said first cash handling device does
12 not have the capability to receive or dispense coins (the note accepting/distributing
13 machine in one ATM); a second cash handling device for processing coins
14 including sorting of coins, totaling of coins received, and communicating coin
15 totals to at least one of: the first cash handling machine, a visual display and a
16 network, wherein said second cash handling device does not have the capability to
17 receive or dispense notes (the coin accepting/distributing machine in another
18 ATM); and wherein said first cash handling device and said second cash handling
19 device have respective circuits for communicating through a first wireless
20 communication network (satellite communication) wherein the first cash handling
21 device and the second cash handling device provide a cooperative cash
22 management system in which the totals for notes and coins, respectively, are
23 brought together through wireless communication from these respective devices
24 and are displayed on at least one of the first cash handling device, the second cash
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013