Appeal No. 97-0178
Application 08/355,326
obviousness with respect to the rejection of claim 11. Furthermore, to determine the level
of skill in the art, we have reviewed the references cited, but not applied against the claims
and find that these other references disclose the use of infra-red spectrums of light. (E.g.,
Bianco, 4,359,633; Rudland, 4,678,898; Miller, 4,889,367, Storch et al., 5,367,148
referencing Dolash et al., 4,983,817 in col. 23.) We disagree with appellant that the
Examiner has based the rejection upon impermissible hindsight reconstruction. (See reply
brief at page 5.)
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claim 11 and claims 15, 17 and 19 which
have been grouped with claim 11.
CLAIMS 3, 7, 9 AND 24-26
Appellant argues that both the first code and the overlay are imaged and that the
overlay is transparent to infra-red light. (See brief at page 12.) This has been
discussed above. We agree with the Examiner. Therefore, we will sustain the rejections
of claims 3 and 24. Further, we will sustain the rejection claims 7, 9, 25 and 26 which have
been grouped with claim 24.
CLAIMS 20 AND 21
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007