Appeal No. 97-0178
Application 08/355,326
the language of the claims. We agree with the Examiner and Fisun further discloses the
codes may be “print[ed] on . . . the surface of the article.” (See col. 4.) An ink jet printer
would have been one of the most common devices to print on a substrate or paper.
Therefore, we wil sustain the rejection of claims 5, 10 and 18.
CLAIMS 13 AND 14
Appellant argues that the “overlay substantially completely cover[s] the first code.”
We disagree with appellant, as discussed above, with respect to claim 1 concerning the
overlay and with respect to claim 5 concerning the print methodology. Therefore, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 14.
CLAIM 22
Appellant argues the mere fact that scanner wands per se are known does not
make it obvious to use them in the combination set forth in independent claim 21. (See
brief at page 14.) We agree with appellant. The Examiner has merely stated that the
“skilled artisan would recognize the ability to use known wand scanners to read
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007