Appeal No. 97-0178
Application 08/355,326
3
obscuring the first code. (See brief at page 8; reply at page 2.) The Examiner addresses
this argument on pages 7-8 of the answer. We agree with the Examiner that Fisun teaches
a second code over the first code. This second code would thereby cover and obscure the
first code. Furthermore, depending on the specific code of information, the code may
substantially completely cover the first code as taught by the layer in Diekemper for
security purposes.
Appellant’s argument on page 3 of the reply brief compares each individual
teaching to the language of the claim and concludes that each individual teaching does
not teach the invention as claimed. We agree with these statements, but the proper
question is what does the combination of the references teach or would have fairly
suggested to the skilled artisan. As discussed above, the combination teaches and would
have fairly suggested the invention as set forth in the language of claim 1.
Appellant further argues that a "layer is not the same thing as imaging.” (See reply
brief at page 2.) (Emphasis in original.) We agree, but reference the above discussion
concerning “imaging.” Furthermore, we note that claim 1 does not require the “same type
3We note that claim 1 includes two limitations which do not completely agree, the "overlay imaged
over and at least partially covering said first code" and the "security block substantially completely covering
and visibly obscuring the first code." One implies limited coverage and the other implies almost total
coverage. Furthermore, it is questioned how the security block "visibly" obscures the first code which is not
visible in the visible spectrum (claim 2).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007