OBVIOUSNESS: Cash Box for Use in Public Transit Systems
A cash box that automatically locks when removed from the fare box is shown
in the prior art and claims directed to this feature are refused. A claim
adding a vault to the combination is refused for extension of monopoly
because of another patent already issued on a divisional. Five claims not
previously refused were remanded for further examination.
Final Action: Modified.
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner of
Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated March 25, 1975, on
application 108,271 (Class 232-5). The application was filed on March 19,
1971, in the name of George G. Dominick et al, and is entitled "Exact
Fare System." The Patent Appeal Board conducted a Hearing on July 21,
1976, at which Messrs. T.R. Kelly and G.L. Conway represented the
applicant.
This application relates to a fare box for use in public transportation
systems where coins or tickets are deposited. This fare box has a cash
box receptacle area which is adapted to receive a removable cash box.
The applicant's cash box is designed to prevent pilfering as it is
automatically locked upon removal from the faze box. Figure 2 of the
drawings given below shows the fare box and figure 18 the construction of
the cash box.
(see formula I and II)
In the Final Action the examiner rejected claim 16 as being improperly
dependent on claim 15, and refused claims 1 and 15 for lacking subject
matter in view of the following references.
United States
2,815,166 Dec. 3, 1957 Sollenberger
2,884,188 April 28, 1959 Grant et al
The Sollenberger patent relates to a coin collection apparatus for a coin
operated mechanism, such as a parking meter or vending machine. Figure 1
of Sollenberger illustrates his invention.
(see formula I)
Claim 1 of Sollenberger reads:
Coin handling apparatus comprising a closed coin container; a
receiver housing on the container having a generally cylindrical
receiving recess therein and having a coin discharge opening
within the container; an actuating pin fixed in the recess and
extending generally axially thereof; a generally cylindrical
sleeve mounted in the recess, said sleeve having a coin discharge
opening therein and being rotatable from a first position in
which said discharge openings are aligned to a second position in
which said discharge openings are misaligned; a closed cash box
having a coin discharge opening therein; a gate in the cash box
and rotatable relative thereto to control the discharge opening
therein, said cash box having an arcuate slot in its bottom to
receive said actuating pin; a lock in the cash box locking the
gate against opening movement relative to the coin discharge
opening in the cash box; a key fixed in the bottom of the recess,
said key being positioned to enter the lock and the pin being
positioned to enter the slot and engage the gate when the cash
box is inserted into the sleeve; and means providing a driving
connection between the box and the sleeve when the box is so
inserted into the sleeve, whereby rotation of the inserted
box within the recess will unlock the gate and rotate the
box relative thereto to open the coin discharge opening in
the box, said rotation serving to rotate the sleeve to said
first position to permit coins in the box to pass into the
container.
The Grant patent relates to a fare collection box which comprises a normally
locked receptacle in which the fares collect and from which the coins and
tickets may be removed only by an authorized person. This patent is
illustrated in figure 1 shown below.
(see formula I)
In the Final Action the examiner stated (in part):
Regarding claims 1 and 15 it is noted that applicant's only
substantial argument against the previous rejection is that
the Sollenberger cash box and coin collecting container
combination constitutes a different environment than does a
similar cash box in his fare box which has certain claimed
features such as the fare deposit section, the inspection surface
fox temporary holding of fares, and the manual dumping means,
which incidentally are all shown by Grant et al.
While it is agreed that the actual combination shown by
Sollenberger is not a fare box with a rotatable cash box it
should be borne in mind that the Sollenberger cash box is
primarily used as a coin receiving box in a coin-operated
mechanism such as a parking meter or vending machine. Further,
the fact that applicant knew of this reference, as evidenced
by page 12, lines 27 to 29, and that both the Sollenberger and
Giant et al patents issued in the same class show that both
patents are at least in the same art field.
Regarding applicant's comment that "If the combination of
Grant and Sollenberger were obvious then the combination
would have been made long before applicant's efforts",
the following observations are made. The need to reduce
the possibility of pilfering from a bus fare collection
box such as the one shown by Grant et al, and further to
arrange that the bus driver did not carry any money, has
only become acute in recent years and it cannot be said
that there has been a long felt need which was unsatisfied.
The Grant et al fare box was designed so that the accumulated
coins and tickets could be removed only by an authorized
person and as applicant states "transit authorities have
reverted to, the "exact fare" collections". If it was
thought necessary to eliminate the possibility of pilfering
from a removed and closed Grant et al cash box by an
unauthorized person who had obtained the necessary two
keys by making a removed and closed cash box openable
only by rotational insertion into a coin collecting container
then Sollenberger shows how this could be done. It follows
that when applicant decided to use a cash box having a basic
structure following the Sollenberger concept, then the fare
box would have to have a receptacle similar to the receptacle
on the Sollenberger collecting container.
In view of the foregoing it is held that it would not require
the exercise of inventive ingenuity on the part of a person
skilled in this art to replace the cash box of the Grant et al
fare collection box with the Sollenberger cash box, to make
a structure as claimed in claims 1 and 15.
Claims 1 and 15 are consequently rejected as being obvious
over Grant et al in view of Sollenberger.
Claim 16 stands rejected as being improperly dependent on
claim 15.
The applicant in his response dated September 25, 1975 and September 29,
1975 to the Final Action stated (in part):
The Sollenberger patent relates to a coin handling apparatus
particularly suitable for use in a system for collecting coins from
a coin-operated mechanism such as a parking meter or vending machine.
In the system, the collector is provided with a sealed container 20
which may be mounted on wheels or may be carried, with the container
being provided with a receiver housing 21 in its top, being
generally cylindrical in shape and proportioned to receive a cash
box 22 therein. The cash box 22 is normally installed within a
parking meter housing so that coins deposited in the parking meter
usually find their way into the cash box by means of a coin slot 23
in the top thereof. The cash box 22 is provided with a coin
discharge opening 25 in its side normally closed by a gate 26 so that
when the cash box is removed from the parking meter housing, the
coins therein are unavailable to the collector. The cash box and
receiver housing are so designed as to permit the gate 26 to be
opened only when the cash box is inserted fully within the coin
receiver housing and the coin discharge opening 25 covered thereby,
so that only when so inserted can the coins be removed from the
cash box. When the cash box is so inserted and the gate operated
to open the coin discharge opening, the cash box cannot be withdrawn
from the receiver housing until the parts are again operated as
to cause the gate 26 to close the coin discharge opening.
Prior Art - The Combination of Grant and Sollenberger:
Bringing together the teachings of Sollenberger and Grant in
combination would result in a fare box having a housing or the
like for carrying the Sollenberger cash box and some sort of
channelling device between the inspection surface and the cash box
such as to funnel the fares through the narrow slit inlet 23 of
Sollenberger. The Sollenberger container 20 with its cash box
receptacle 21 would be used to collect money from the cash box. It
is important to note that Sollenberger is specifically concerned
with the container 20 and its receptacle 21 which are used to
collect money from the cash box. Sollenberger is specifically not
concerned with the arrangement for feeding money and the like into
the cash box.
Applicant's Invention
This "obvious" combination of Sollenberger with Grant is not what
applicant has done. Applicant is concerned with a cash box that
will,indeed, function in a system such as that of Sollenberger but
which can readily be used for collecting bus fares and the like.
One of the major problems involved in collecting bus fares is that
the fares are in the form of both cash and tickets. The Sollenberger
cash box could not be used for this purpose since the paper tickets
could not be reliably fed through the thin coin slot 23. Any
attempt to do so would inevitably result in jamming of the system
with a bent or frayed ticket.
To solve this problem applicant has provided a system including a
fare collection box with a particular structure and a cash box
that cooperates with this fare collection box so as to be able not
only to collect coins and tickets but also to exclude the
possibility of pilferage.
The Question of Obviousness:
1. Difference in Field:
Taken alone, in the Sollenberger device the cash box is removed from
the vending machine or parking meter and placed in a cash box
receptacle on the top of a vault-type unit and there operated to dis-
charge to the vault. The vault is transported from parking meter to
parking meter (or vending machine) at spaced intervals of time and,
therefore it lies in the field of the vault system of the applicant
(Canadian application 198,671 allowed September 16, 1975) rather
than the present fare collection system which is actually carried on
the bus.
...
3. Not Mere Combination:
Referring again to the combination of prior art, even if it
might have been obvious to try to modify existing fare collect-
ion systems by using Sollenberger's cash box as the fare collection
box on each bus and using the receptacle 21 and container 20 of
Sollenberger for the collection of money from a plurality of buses,
this is not what the applicant has done. The applicant has used
a cash box receptacle as well as a cash box for each bus. This
is not obvious and, indeed, if it had occurred to anyone other
than the applicant, it would have probably been dismissed as being
wasteful of receptacles. In Sollenberger there is only one
receptacle to a plurality of cash boxes whereas in the applicant's
system there is one receptacle for each cash box.
4. Different Cash Boxes:
Further, the Sollenberger cash box itself varies considerably from
that of the applicant. The Sollenberger box has both an inlet and
an outlet for coins, the applicant's cash box has one aperture
that serves as both an inlet and an outlet. Therefore, for the
Sollenberger system to work in the same way as the applicant's
system, the inlet 23 of Sollenberger would have to be dispensed
with and some means would have to be found of opening the gate 26
when the cash box is in the parking meter or vending machine, of
directing the coins through the opening 25, and subsequently closing
the gate when the box is removed for the periodic collection of the
fares therefrom.
In other words, the applicant's arrangement or something similar there-
to would have been necessary but Sollenberger would surely have
thought that wasteful and inefficient and anything but obvious.
Indeed, he would probably have thought it to be obviously undesirable
because of the expense of a plurality of cash box receptacles.
Referring to the actual wording of claim 1, there is no closure
means in Sollenberger for blocking the access opening (slot 23)
and no means to permit rotation so that the access opening will receive
fares or coins.
5. Long Felt Need:
Although it is not necessary to establish a long felt need as an
element for invention, this ancillary issue has arisen. In the Final
Official Action, it is stated that the need to reduce the possibility
of pilfering from a bus fare collection box such as the one shown
by Grant and to arrange that the bus driver not carry any money,
has only become acute in recent years and, therefore, it cannot be
said that there had been a long felt need which remained unsatisfied.
The applicant argues that the need that a driver not carry any money
has indeed become acute in recent times because of thefts by bandits.
However, the present invention bears no more relationship to this
problem than to the older fare collection systems. The solution lies
only with an exact fare being deposited in any of the systems
available and thus the driver need carry no money with him which
could be stolen. However, there has always been a need to stop
pilferage from these systems by drivers and persons employed to
empty the cash boxes from each bus. The need to stop pilferage,
although never critical (and now not critical) has always been
present and remains unsatisfied. Therefore the applicant's
comment that "If the combination of Grant and Sollenberger were
obvious then the combination would have been made long before the
applicant's efforts" is valid.
The question to be considered is whether the rejected claims have made a
patentable advance in the art. Rejected claim 1 reads as follows:
In a construction for collecting fares and the like comprising a
fare deposit section, an inspection surface defined in said deposit
section for temporarily holding fares deposited, manually operable
means for dumping fares from said inspection surface into a cash
box area, a cash box receptacle defined in said cash box area, and
a removable cash box adapted to be received in said receptacle,
said cash box defining an access opening, closure means in said
cash box for blocking said access opening for preventing access to
the interior oœ the cash box, means normally locking said closure
means against movement relative to said access opening, means
defined by said receptacle operating to unlock said closure means
upon insertion of said cash box into said receptacle and to thereby
permit rotation of said cash box relative to the receptacle to
locate the cash box in position such that the access opening will
receive fares dumped from said inspection surface, means for
locking said cash box in place in the receptacle upon rotation away
from its inserted position and toward said receiving position,
and wherein said closure means is automatically closed during
rotation of the cash box back to said inserted position and prior
to removal of the cash box from the receptacle.
Prior to the hearing the agent, Mr. Kelly, was contacted and informed that
claim 2 was intended to be included with rejected claims 1 and 15. He
agreed to cover claim 2 in his representations to the Board.
The applicant states that he "is concerned with a cash box that will, indeed,
function in a system such as that of Sollenberger but which can readily be
used for collecting bus fares and the like". He rationalizes that by using a
single opening for both entry and exit, he prevents pilfering, and tickets
as well as coins can be used.
In both Sollenberger and the applicant's cash box, the opening is automatically
locked when the box is moved from one location to another. The applicant
argues that the coin slot of Sollenberger is subject to pilfering since it
is not sealed. When we look at slot 23 of Sollenberger, we find overlapping
ribs within the slot which makes it virtually impossible to "fish" or
"shake" the coins out of the cash box during transit. Consequently we
conclude that in Sollenberger pilfering is not a factor we need consider.
Another advantage suggested by the applicant for his box is that his arrange-
ment accepts both coins and tokens, whereas Sollenberger accepts only coins.
Sollenberger discloses the concept of a cash box which is locked during
transit, and which is only opened when placed in an appropriate unlocking
arrangement located in a collection vault. By using a similar unlocking
arrangement in both the fare box and in the collection vault, the applicant
requires only one opening for both entry and exit of tokens or coins.
Sollenberger uses a coin slot for entry so the cash box does not require an
unlocking arrangement at the coin collecting location (which in his case is
a parking meter). By duplicating the unlocking arrangement in the
collecting area (fare box) the applicant's single large opening is capable
of accepting both tickets and coins. Using the Sollenberger concept
for unlocking the cash box when placing it in a fare box receptacle does
not possess any element of invention.
According to the applicant the use of a receptacle and cash box together
as a unit in each bus is not shown in the teaching of Sollenberger. We
observe that the use of a cash box inserted into a fare box with its attendant
locking or unlocking arrangement is shown in the Grant patent, which is also
designed to stop pilfering. Selection of the Sollenberger cash box with its
unlocking receptacle arrangement in the fare box as well as in the vault
does not provide "that scintilla of invention necessary to support the patent."
On considering the difference between the cited art and claim 1 we find
that Grant relates to a fare collection box of the type found in buses.
Sollenberger shows the concept of unlocking a cash box when placing it in
a special receptacle. In our view fitting a fare collection box with this
special receptacle, as is covered by claim 1, is not patentable subject matter.
Claim 2, which depends on claim 1, adds a door with a window to show the
presence of the cash box in the fare box receptacle. There is no patent-
able feature in such an addition, and our comments with respect to claim 1 also
apply to claim 2.
Claim 15 differs from claim 1 in that the access opening is defined as
being rotatable within the receptacle. However, the objections to claim 1
apply equally to this claim, and it also fails to make patentable advance
in the art.
Claim 16, which is dependent on claim 15, adds a vault for collecting fare
from a plurality of cash boxes. We find that applicant's divisional
application no. 198671, which matured as patent no. 988,896, claims "Apparatus
for collecting fares and the like comprising a plurality of cash boxes for
the deposition of fares at various locations with the fares being thereafter
brought to a common collection location, a vault construction at said
location...". Since the applicant already has patented the combination of a
cash box with a vault, we consider claim 16 would constitute an extension of
monopoly, and is not allowable in this application.
At the hearing the applicant argued that his device made extensive modifications
to the cited art. Such modifications are, however, protected by claims 3
to 8 which the examiner considers allowable. We agree with his conclusions with
respect to them. However, we find that claim 9 is so similar to rejected
claim 16 that we recommend that claims 9, 10 to 14, which depend on it,
should be returned to the examiner for further consideration.
We agree that increased security may flow from putting in a plurality of
devices that previously existed into one device. This increased security,
however, flows from an idea lacking in patentable merit. On this point
we refer to Drysdale and Sidney Smith & Blyth Limited v. Davey Paxmon &
Company (1939), 55 R.P.C. 95 at page 113, where Luxmoore J., said: "An
attempt has been made to displace the argument that the invention lacked
subject matter by setting up a number of advantages which were alleged to
result from the use of the device; but if no ingenuity is involved in the
application of the idea, no amount of proof of its practical utility can
save it from being invalid from want of subject matter."
The comments of the court, in Lowe Martin Co. Ltd. v Office Specialty Manu-
facturing Co. Ltd. (1930) Ex. C.R. 181, are also pertinent: "The mere
carrying forward of the original thought, a change only in form, proportion
or degree, doing the same thing in the same way, by substantially the same
means, with better results is not such an invention as will sustain a
patent" (page 187 line 9), and "It is always necessary to consider the rights
of the general public to avoid monopolies on such simple devices as would
occur to anyone familiar with the art."
For the reasons indicated above, the Board is of the opinion that claims 1,
2, 15 and 16 be refused and that claims 9 to 14 be returned to the examiner
for further consideration.
G.A. Asher
Chairman
Patent Appeal Board
I concur with the findings of the Patent Appeal Board. Claims 1, 2, 15
and 16 are refused. The applicant has six months within which to remove
the claims, or to appeal this decision under provisions of Section 44 of
the Patent Act. Claims 9-14 will be the subject of further examination
after claims 1, 2, 15 and 16 are disposed of, unless the applicant
voluntarily elects to delete them as well.
J.H.A. Gari‚py Agent for Applicant
Commissioner of Patents
Smart & Biggar
Box 2999, Station D
Dated at Hull, Quebec Ottawa, Ontario
this 3rd. day of September, 1976 K1P 5Y6