Appeal No. 97-0178
Application 08/355,326
Appellant argues that neither of the two references teaches that two scanners are
“mounted immediately adjacent to each other so that by [a] single pass relative movement
[between a substrate and] the scanner heads read[s] infra-red wavelength
range machine readable code and visible light range machine readable code at the same
time.” (See brief at page 12.) We agree with appellant concerning the argument, but the
rejection is based upon the combined teachings and the motivation and knowledge of the
skilled artisan as discussed above. We agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to use the infra-red scanner as taught by Diekemper in the dual scanner orientation of
Fisun for simultaneous detection of plural codes at different wavelengths. Fisun discloses
reading the codes in a single reading cycle. (See col 5.) Therefore, we will sustain the
rejection of claims 20 and 21.
CLAIMS 5, 10 AND 18
Appellant argues that Diekemper does not address the manner in which the
security block is formed. (See brief at page 12 and reply brief at page 1.) We agree,
but the Examiner has relied upon Fisun to teach the imaging and the use of coherent, high
intensity pulsed radiation. (See answer at page 15; Fisun at col. 3.) The Examiner argues
that this technique falls within the electrophotographic method set forth in the alternative in
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007