Appeal Number: 2006-2607
Application Number: 10/004,738
1 A batch is a quantity considered as a group (Merriam Webster). Therefore
2 depositing a group of notes and coins, even one at a time, is a deposit of a batch.
3 Therefore we sustain the rejection of claim 19.
4 Claim 21 was excluded from the rejection in all of the prior actions that
5 rejected claims under this combination of art. This is the first instance of a
6 rejection of claim 21 under this applied art. The Examiner has not provided any
7 explanation as to how the art would read on claim 21. We can find no support in
8 any of the applied references for a master-slave relationship between two cash
9 machines connected by a wireless network.
10 Accordingly we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-9 and 15-20, but
11 do not sustain the rejection of claim 21, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
12 Amos, Watanabe and Richardson.
13
14 DECISION
15 To summarize, our decision is as follows:
16 • The rejection of claims 2-9 and 15-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
17 paragraph, as rendering the claimed subject matter indefinite is not
18 sustained.
19 • The rejection of claims 2-9 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
20 over Amos, Watanabe, and Richardson is sustained.
21 • The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Amos,
22 Watanabe, and Richardson is not sustained.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013