Appeal No. 97-0178
Application 08/355,326
Appellant argues that Fisun and Diekemper do not disclose the “equivalency of
infra-red or ultraviolet light.” (See brief at pages 6 and 7, respectively.) We agree with
appellant regarding the equivalency of infra-red or ultraviolet light, but we agree with the
Examiner that claims 1 and 2 do not require infra-red light. Therefore, argument thereto is
not persuasive. With respect to claim 2, the Fisun patent discloses the use of light in the
visible range. In general, the Examiner’s position appears to be that either ultraviolet or
infra-red spectrum of light may be used to hide or obscure codes for security reasons
rather than that the two spectrum’s of light are "equivalent." (See answer at pages 10-13.)
From a review of the prior art and level of skill in the relevant art, we agree with the
Examiner. The skilled artisan would have known of the difference between the two
spectrums of light and selected appropriate codes, materials and scanners based upon
the selected spectrum of light to be used.
Appellant argues that Diekemper does not teach “an image on a substrate.” (See
brief at pages 7 and 13.) We agree with respect to Diekemper, but the Examiner
discusses the use of images and printing on the substrate with respect to the Fisun patent.
(See Final rejection at page 7; answer at page 13; Fisun at col. 4.) Appellant further
argues that the combination of Fisun and Diekemper would not produce a code imaged on
an area thereof and a security block imaged over and completely covering and visibly
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007