Appeal No. 97-0178
Application 08/355,326
The second bar code may be deemed a security block or the teaching of Diekemper
concerning the layer which is not transparent to visible light would have been a motivation
for the use of a “security block.” This argument by appellant is unconvincing because it
improperly attacks the references individually rather than addressing their collective
teachings. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 U.S.P.Q. 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
We agree with the Examiner that claims 1 and 2 do not include any limitation to the
use of infra-red light, therefore arguments thereto by appellant are not persuasive.
We will sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 2.
CLAIM 11, 15, 17 and 19
With respect to appellant’s argument concerning the differences between the
ultraviolet spectrum and the infra-red spectrum (brief at pages 8-11), we agree with
appellant concerning mere equivalence, but it appears that the Examiner’s intent was to
focus on the non-visible aspect and functionality of these two ranges rather than the
inherent differences between the two ranges of the spectrum. Once the skilled artisan was
motivated to have a second code or security covering which was visible in a second range
of light, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a layered or stacked
orientation with the first code. (See answer at pages 7-13.) The skilled artisan would have
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007