Ex Parte McGunn et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 5, 2009

10428365 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 5, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte EDWARD J. MCGUNN, JAMES IVEY, III, EDUARDO
DECASTRO BARCELLOS, and WAGNER BITTENCOURT OLIVEIRA
____________

Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided:1 February 6, 2009
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL W. O’NEILL, and
STEFAN STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judges.

STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365

2
Edward J. McGunn et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (2002).

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ invention is drawn towards a self-service checkout
system 14 including a cash validation system 10 for use with a point of sale
(POS) system 12 (Spec. 5, ll. 2-3 and fig. 1).

Claims 1 and 16 are representative of the claimed invention and read
as follows:

1. A cash validation system for use with a point of sale
system to provide a self service checkout system,
comprising:

a bill acceptor for receiving paper currency;

a coin changer for receiving and dispensing coins;

a control unit operatively coupled to the bill acceptor and
the coin changer for monitoring and commanding
operation of the bill acceptor and the coin changer; and

an interface operatively coupled between the control unit
and the point of sale system for communicating
information on received paper currency and coins to the
point of sale system and receiving requests from the point
of sale system to dispense change and in response to said
requests commanding operation of the coin changer.

Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
3
16. A cash validation system for use with a point of sale
system to provide a self service checkout system,
comprising:
a safe having a door lock and door sensors;
a bill dispenser and acceptor mounted on the safe for
receiving and dispensing paper currency;
a coin changer mounted on the safe for receiving and
dispensing coins;
a control unit operatively coupled to the bill acceptor and
dispenser and the coin changer for monitoring and
commanding operation of the bill acceptor and dispenser
and the coin changer; and
an interface operatively coupled between the control unit
and the point of sale system for communicating
information on received paper currency and coins to the
point of sale system and receiving requests from the point
of sale system to dispense change and in response to said
requests commanding operation of the bill acceptor and
dispenser and the coin changer.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:

Meeker US 5,725,081 Mar. 10, 1998
Millikan US 2002/0170782 A1 Nov. 21, 2002

The following rejections are before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Millikan.
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
4
The Examiner rejected claims 13-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Millikan in view of Meeker.

THE ISSUES
1. Have the Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
the self-checkout system of Millikan anticipates the claimed invention?
2. Have the Appellants demonstrated that the Examiner erred in
determining that the combined teachings of Millikan and Meeker would
have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the safe of
Meeker with the self-checkout station of Millikan?

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following enumerated findings of facts (FF) are supported by at
least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 848 F.2d
1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
1. The Appellants’ POS system 12 includes a processor 18, an
input device 22 such as a keyboard or a scanner, a memory 24,
and a display 20 (Spec. 5, ll. 12-17 and fig. 1).
2. The Appellants’ cash validation system 10 includes a coin
changer 44, a bill acceptor 50, and/or a bill dispenser and
acceptor 52 that are operatively coupled to a control board 36
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
5
by serial interfaces 46, 54, and 56, respectively (Spec. 6, l. 13
through Spec. 7, l. 2 and fig. 1).
3. The cash validation system 10 of the Appellants’ system further
includes a safe 30 having one or more doors operated by a
plurality of locks 32 and sensors 34 connected to the control
board 36 and a tube vending box 38 for storing tubes or rolls of
coins that is also electrically connected to the control board 36
(Spec. 6, ll. 5-13 and fig. 1).
4. A control circuit including the control board 36 and a hardware
control module 48 operates the safe 30 (Spec. 7, ll. 11-12 and
fig. 1).
5. The hardware control module 48 comprises an interface
operatively coupled between the control board 36 and the POS
system 12 (Spec. 7, ll. 19-21).
6. The hardware control module 48 can either be a separate
hardware module physically coupled to the POS system 12 (as
shown in fig. 1) or be “a software module running in the POS
processing system 16” (Spec. 7, ll. 15-18).
7. The hardware control module 48 receives information regarding
deposited paper currency and coins and communicates such
information to the POS system 12. The hardware control
module 48 also receives requests from the POS system 12 to
dispense change and in response, commands the bill dispenser
and acceptor 52 and the coin changer 44 to dispense change
(Spec. 7, l. 20 through Spec. 8, l. 4).
8. Millikan discloses a self-checkout system including a plurality
of checkout stations 1, a self-service terminal 10, a bagging area
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
6
20, a merchandise placement area 30, a security/assistance pole
40, a supervisor terminal 60, and a supervisor 70 (Page 2, ¶ 30
and fig. 1).
9. Millikan further discloses that the self-service terminal 10
includes a touch screen 12 for displaying information to, and
receiving information from, the customer, a scanner 15, a
keypad 65, a magnetic stripe reader 13, a printer 17, and a
currency and coin acceptor and change assembly 69 (Page 3, ¶¶
40-43 and fig. 1).
10. The currency and coin acceptor and change assembly 69
includes bill reader 72 for verifying the authenticity of the bill,
rejecting bills that fail a visual check, and crediting a bill’s
denomination to a customer’s tender amount (Page 4, ¶ 46 and
fig. 7).
11. The currency and coin acceptor and change assembly 69 further
includes a coin input mechanism 73, a mechanical sifter for
identifying the coin’s denomination, an output signal device for
crediting the coin’s denomination to a customer’s tender
amount, and a change receptacle 74 (Page 4, ¶¶ 46-47 and fig.
7).
12. Millikan also discloses a processing unit 80 which controls the
functions of the self-checkout station 1 and which is connected
to the currency and coin acceptor and change assembly 69, the
card reader 13, the keyboard 65, the printer 17, and a memory
84 (Page 4, ¶ 49 and fig. 6).
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
7
13. The hardware elements of the self-checkout station 1 of
Millikan are connected to the processing unit 80 using a serial
connector (Page 5, ¶ 53).
14. The individual components of a self-service terminal 10 of the
system of Millikan may be separate devices or may be
integrated into a single kiosk 11 (Page 3, ¶ 36).
15. The kiosk 11 of Millikan is operated using various software
architectures or operating systems (Page 5, ¶ 54).
16. Meeker discloses a combination cash deposit and dispensing
safe that receives cash and accounts for the cash received (col.
1, ll. 5-7 and 22-23).
17. Meeker’s safe includes a plurality of dispenser cartridges 30
having tubes containing multiple units of cash (tube vending
box) (col. 2, ll. 52-57; col. 3, ll. 29-33; figs. 3 and 4), a locking
system having locking bolts (door locks) 44, 46, 48 and a
keypad 22 (col. 3, ll. 13-17 and fig. 6), a cash receiving and
validating unit 16 for receiving, validating, and storing the cash
(col. 2, ll. 29-37 and fig. 1), and a central processing unit 116
(CPU) for operating the components of the safe (col. 4, ll. 44-
48 and fig. 8).
18. The safe of Meeker can be programmed to function in a variety
of manners such as providing an accounting of the cash
deposited, received, or exchanged by each cashier, to receive
and credit cash or deposits without dispensing an equal amount
of change, or to dispense an amount of cash without the deposit
of cash (col. 5, ll. 4-12).

Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
8

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (1987).
It is not necessary that the reference teach what the subject application
teaches, but only that the claim read on something disclosed in the reference,
i.e., that all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met by the
reference. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir.
1983).

Obviousness
"Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.'" KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, _, 127
S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the
basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and
content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject
matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in
evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550 U.S. at _, 127 S. Ct. at 1734
("While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular
case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.")
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
9
The Supreme Court stated that in cases involving more than the
simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere
application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the
improvement, it will be necessary to "determine whether there was an
apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by
the patent at issue." Id. at 1740-41. The Court noted that "[t]o facilitate
review, this analysis should be made explicit." Id. (citing In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness")).

Inherency
Under principles of inherency, when a reference is silent about an
asserted inherent characteristic, it must be clear that the missing descriptive
matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that
it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Continental Can Co.
v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Inherency, however, may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing
may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.
(Citations omitted.) If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to
show that the natural result flowing from the operation as
taught would result in the performance of the questioned
function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should
be regarded as sufficient.

In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v.
Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (CCPA 1939)).

Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
10
OPINION
Issue (1)
Claims 1 and 7
The Appellants argue that Millikan does not disclose or suggest “a
cash validation system for use with a point of sale system to provide a self-
service checkout system” (App. Br. 2 5) (underlining in original). That is,
according to the Appellants, because “Millikan is directed [towards] an
integrated POS system…there is no separate point of sale system or interface
coupled between any control unit and a point of sale system” (App. Br. 6)
(underlining added). Specifically, the Appellants argue that Millikan does
not disclose or suggest,
a control unit operatively coupled to a bill acceptor and coin changer
for monitoring and commanding operation of the bill acceptor and
coin changer and an interface operatively coupled between the control
unit and the point of sale system for communicating information on
received paper currency and coins to the point of sale system and
receiving requests from the point of sale system to dispense change
and in response to the request commanding operation of the coin
changer.”

(App. Br. 5-6) (underlining in original).

The Appellants conclude that the “communication device in Millikan
simply controls transfer of messages” and “does not command operation of
any device” (App. Br. 6). In other words, the Appellants appear to argue
that in contrast to the Appellants’ claimed invention the system of Millikan
is (1) an integrated system, (2) does not include a control unit operatively
coupled to a bill acceptor and coin changer for monitoring and commanding

2 We refer herein to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”), filed July 5, 2007,
the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed November 8, 2007, and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”), mailed September 6, 2007.
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
11
operation of the bill acceptor and coin changer, and (3) does not include an
interface operatively coupled between the control unit and the point of sale
system.
With respect to the Appellants’ first point, the Examiner takes the
position that although Millikan teaches the “integration of the point of sale
system with the cash validation system,” Millikan also discloses that the
“cash validation system and point of sale system may be separate” (Ans. 9).
To sustain this position the Examiner points to Page 3, ¶ 36 of Millikan
which states that,
The individual components of a self-service terminal 10 may be
embodied as separate devices, or they are preferably embodied as
integrated components enclosed within or closely associated with the
kiosk.

We agree with the Examiner that a person ordinarily skilled in the art
would reasonably understand this language to imply that Millikan discloses
a point of sale system integrated with the cash validation system or, in the
alternative, a plurality of separate devices that are operatively connected (FF
14).
In response to the Appellants’ second and third points, the Examiner
takes the position that the “output signal device” of Millikan satisfies the
limitation of a “bill acceptor and coin changer” because it detects that a
“change in credit is necessary” and also, “it must ‘monitor and command’
the bill acceptor and coin changer in order to send signals representative of
the coins and currency input and to cause a change in the credit given” (Ans.
10-11). As noted above, the Appellants’ POS system 12 includes a display
20, an input device 22 such as a keyboard or a scanner, a memory 24, and a
processor 18 (FF 1). Similarly, Millikan discloses a self-service terminal 10
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
12
including a touch screen 12 for displaying information to, and receiving
information from, the customer (input device and display), a scanner 15
(input device), a keypad 65 (input device), a magnetic stripe reader 13, a
printer 17 (FF 8 and 9), and a processing unit 80 and memory 84 for
controlling the functions of the self-checkout station 1 (FF 12) and having
serial connections with the hardware elements of the self-checkout station 1
(FF 13). The Appellants’ cash validation system 10 further includes a coin
changer 44, a bill acceptor 50, and/or a bill dispenser and acceptor 52 that
are operatively coupled to a control board 36 by serial interfaces 46, 54, and
56, respectively (FF 2). Similarly, Millikan’s currency and coin acceptor
and change assembly 69 (cash validation system) includes a bill reader 72
for verifying the authenticity of the bill, rejecting bills that fail a visual
check, and crediting a bill’s denomination to a customer’s tender amount
(FF 10) (bill acceptor and bill dispenser). Furthermore Millikan’s currency
and coin acceptor and change assembly 69 (cash validation system) includes
a coin input mechanism 73, a mechanical sifter for identifying the coin’s
denomination, an output signal device for crediting the coin’ s denomination
to a customer’s tender amount, and a change receptacle 74 (FF 11) (coin
changer). As noted above, because the currency and coin acceptor and
change assembly 69 (cash validation system) of Millikan has the ability to
accept and validate currency (paper and coin), we find that the system of
Millikan must necessarily include a controller that is operatively coupled to
the currency and coin acceptor and change assembly 69 (cash validation
system) which monitors and commands its functions. Moreover, because
the currency and coin acceptor and change assembly 69 (cash validation
system) of Millikan also has the ability to credit the currency (paper and
coin) to the customer’s tender amount and to provide change to the
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
13
customer, we find that the system of Millikan must also necessarily include
an interface operatively coupled between the controller and the POS system.
In other words, because the system of Millikan performs the exact functions
as the Appellants’ claimed invention, that is, communicating information on
received currency (paper and coins) to the point of sale system and receiving
requests from the point of sale system to dispense change, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that a controller and an
interface must necessarily be present in the system of Millikan. In
conclusion, the rejection of claims 1 and 7 as anticipated by Millikan is
sustained.

Claims 2-4 and 8-10
The Appellants argue that although the system of Millikan includes a
“programmed processing system,” a “hardware control module” is not
implemented in the “programmed processing system,” as required by claims
2 and 8 (App. Br. 7). Further, the Appellants argue that Millikan does not
disclose that the control unit is linked via a serial interface to the
programmed processing system (App. Br. 7).
In response, the Examiner points to Page 5, ll. 12-20 of the
Appellants’ Specification to show that the claimed “programmed processing
system” of the POS system 12 is merely a “conventional personal computer
(PC)…including a processor [18].” Further, the Examiner points to Page 7,
ll. 17-20 of the Appellants’ Specification to show that the claimed “hardware
control module 48 could be a physically separate hardware module coupled
by…a serial interface to the POS system 12.” The Examiner concludes that
because Millikan specifically teaches a “serial interface connection”
between the processing unit and the peripheral devices, then the limitation of
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
14
a “hardware control module” is satisfied (Ans. 13). In other words, it
appears that the Examiner is taking the position that because the processing
unit is connected to the peripheral devices (such as the output signal device
of the currency and coin acceptor and changer, the keyboard, the scanner) a
hardware control module must necessarily be present in the system of
Millikan. We agree with the Examiner.
Millikan specifically discloses that the hardware elements (peripheral
devices) of the self-checkout station 1 are connected to the processing unit
(processor) using a serial connector (FF 13). We note that the peripheral
devices of Millikan are machines, whereas the processing unit is a processor.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that a
“hardware control module” must necessarily be present to interface between
the processing unit and the peripheral devices in order to command and
control the peripheral devices according to the operation of the system of
Millikan.
Moreover, we note that in the alternative, the Appellants also describe
the hardware control module 48 as a “software module running in the POS
processing system 16” (FF 6). Similarly, Millikan discloses that the system
is operated using various software architectures or operating systems (FF
15). Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that
the “software architectures or operating systems” of Millikan satisfies the
limitation of a “hardware control module 48” as alternatively defined by the
Appellants.
With respect to claims 3, 4, 9, and 10, statements baldly submitting
that limitations are not present in the prior art are not persuasive as to error
on part of the Examiner when the Examiner has specified portions of the
prior art that describe those limitations. Specifically, as noted above,
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
15
Millikan discloses the use of a serial connector to link the hardware elements
of the self-checkout station 1 to the processing unit 80 (processor) (FF 13).
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 2-4 and 8-10 as
anticipated by Millikan is sustained.

Claims 5-6 and 11-12
The Appellants argue that Millikan does not disclose that the
hardware control module includes a “coin changer interface routine” (claims
5 and 11) and a “bill acceptor interface routine” (claims 6 and 12) for
monitoring communication between the coin changer and the bill acceptor,
respectively, and the programmed processing system (App. Br. 8). In
response, the Examiner takes the position that because Millikan discloses a
“bill reader” and a “coin input mechanism” that are capable of accepting
currency, rejecting invalid currency, and providing change to the customer,
such mechanisms “represent[s] [a] coin changer interface routine and [a] bill
acceptor interface routine” (Ans. 13). We agree with the Examiner.
As noted above, Millikan specifically discloses a currency and coin
acceptor and change assembly 69 (cash validation system) including a bill
reader 72 for verifying the authenticity of the bill, rejecting bills that fail a
visual check, and crediting a bill’s denomination to a customer’s tender
amount (FF 10) (bill acceptor and bill dispenser). Further, Millikan’s
currency and coin acceptor and change assembly 69 (cash validation system)
includes a coin input mechanism 73, a mechanical sifter for identifying the
coin’s denomination, an output signal device for crediting the coin’s
denomination to a customer’s tender amount, and a change receptacle 74 (FF
11) (coin changer). Therefore, since the currency and coin acceptor and
change assembly 69 (cash validation system) of Millikan has the ability to
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
16
accept and validate currency (paper and coin), to credit the currency (paper
and coin) to the customer’s tender amount, and to provide change to the
customer, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that a
“coin changer interface routine” and a “bill acceptor interface routine” must
necessarily be present in the system of Millikan to allow for communicating,
commanding, and controlling the bill acceptor and the coin changer devices.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 5-6 and 11-12 is sustained.

Issue (2)
The Appellants argue that the teachings of Millikan and Meeker are
not combinable because in contrast to the system of Millikan which provides
the exchange of currency (paper and coin), a “safe performs a completely
different function that is to secure money” (App. Br. 9). We find the
Appellants’ argument unpersuasive for the following reasons. The system of
Millikan specifically teaches accepting and dispensing currency (FF 10 and
11). The system of Millikan further includes a supervisor terminal 60 and a
supervisor 70 (FF 8). A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily
recognize that the system of Millikan would desirably include a mechanism
or device that prevents embezzlement or theft of the currency stored within
the system. Meeker discloses such a device, that is, a cash deposit and
dispensing safe (FF 16). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that,
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to place the currency and coin acceptor and
change assembly of Millikan into a safe as taught by Meeker…in
order to ensure adequate securing to prevent embezzlement or theft of
funds
(Ans. 6).
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
17
The Appellants further argue that neither Millikan nor Meeker
disclose a point of sale terminal implemented in a safe (App. Br. 9) which
includes a communication link between the point of sale terminal and the
safe commanding the operation and control of the devices within the safe
(App. Br. 9). According to the Appellants, because the safe of Meeker is a
“separate device for enabling safe storage and retrieval of cash” it cannot be
operated with the point of sale terminal of Millikan (App. Br. 11).
As far as we understand the Appellants’ arguments, the Appellants are
arguing that the teachings of Millikan and Meeker cannot be combined
because Millikan discloses an integrated structure, whereas Meeker discloses
a separate structure. We find the Appellants’ argument unpersuasive for at
least two reasons. First, as noted above, Millikan teaches both an integrated
and a separate structure (FF 14). Second, it appears that Appellants’
arguments do not take into account the structure resulting from the
combination of the teachings of the references, that is, a self-service terminal
having a safe for depositing and dispensing currency. Nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re
Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Even assuming
arguendo that Millikan discloses an integrated structure and Meeker
discloses a separate structure, obviousness does not require that all of the
features of the secondary reference be bodily incorporated into the primary
reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In this case,
Millikan discloses a system which receives and dispenses currency (FF 10
and 11). The system of Millikan includes a processing unit for controlling
the functions of the hardware components of the system (FF 12). Meeker
discloses a safe for depositing, and dispensing cash (currency) (FF 16).
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
18
Similar to Millikan, the safe of Meeker includes a central processing unit for
operating the components of the safe (FF 17). Further, Meeker discloses
that the safe can be programmed to deposit and dispense cash in a wide
variety of modes (FF 18). A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily
appreciate that the benefits gained by providing the programmable cash
deposit and dispensing capabilities of the safe of Meeker could also be
achieved in the system of Millikan. Hence, we find that modifying the
system of Millikan to provide the safe of Meeker would not have been
uniquely challenging to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is no
more than “the simple substitution of one known element for another or the
mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the
improvement.” KSR., 550 U.S. at _, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. After all, "[a]
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." Id. at ___, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. We agree with the Examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention would
have reasonably incorporated the CPU of Meeker with the system of
Millikan to send any signals regarding the safe of Meeker to the system of
Millikan (Ans. 17). The modification appears to be the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. Moreover, the
Appellants do not provide any evidence to show that modification of
Millikan to provide the safe of Meeker would have been beyond the
technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For the foregoing
reasons, the Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 13 and 16 as unpatentable over Millikan in view of Meeker.
The rejection of claims 13 and 16 is therefore sustained.
With respect to claims 14 and 15, the Appellants argue that neither
Millikan not Meeker teach the desirability to use the point of sale system of
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
19
Millikan to communicate with the door locks (as required by claim 14) or to
communicate with the tube vending device (as required by claim 15) of
Meeker’s safe (App. Br. 10). Once more, the Appellants appear to argue
against the references individually rather than the combination of the
Millikan and Meeker. As stated above, Millikan discloses a system which
receives and dispenses currency (FF 10 and 11). The system of Millikan
includes a processing unit for controlling the functions of the hardware
components of the system (FF 12). Meeker discloses a safe for depositing,
and dispensing cash (currency) (FF 16) including a plurality of dispenser
cartridges having tubes containing multiple units of cash (tube vending
device), a locking system having locking bolts (door locks), and a central
processing unit (CPU) for operating the components of the safe (FF 17).
Furthermore, Meeker discloses that the safe can be programmed to deposit
and dispense cash in a wide variety of modes (FF 18). Therefore, the
combined teachings of Millikan and Meeker discloses a point of sale system
having a programmable safe for receiving and dispensing currency and a
processing unit for communicating with the components of the system
including the dispenser cartridges (tube vending device) and the locking
system of the safe, as required by claims 14 and 15. For the foregoing
reasons, the Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 14 and 15 as unpatentable over Millikan in view of Meeker.
The rejection of claims 14 and 15 is therefore sustained.
Regarding claims 17-213, the Appellants argue that neither Millikan
nor Meeker disclose a “hardware control module implemented in the

3 Claims 17-21 depend from independent claim 16. The Appellants argue
that claim 16 is patentable because the combination of Millikan and Meeker
would not result in the claimed invention having an interface operatively
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
20
“programmed processing system” (as required by claim 17), a “coin changer
interface routine” (as required by claim 18), a “bill acceptor and dispenser
interface routine” (as required by claim 19), an interface that provides
communication between the door locks of the safe and the POS system (as
required by claim 20), and an interface that provides communication
between the tube vending device of the safe and the POS system (as required
by claim 21) (App. Br. 11-13). However, these limitations are the same as
the limitations of previously discussed claims 8, 11-12, 14, and 15. In
conclusion, for the reasons discussed above with respect to claims 8, 11-12,
14, and 15 the rejection of claims 17-21 as unpatentable over Millikan in
view of Meeker is likewise sustained.

SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Millikan is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 13-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Millikan in view of Meeker is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED

coupled between a control unit and a point of sale system. App. Br. 11.
This argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons provided supra in our
analysis of claims 1 and 7, in which we found that Millikan discloses such
an interface.
Appeal 2008-5256
Application 10/428,365
21

hh

WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER
500 W. MADISON STREET
SUITE 3800
CHICAGO, IL 60661