Appeal No. 1999-0913
Application No. 08/723,330
It is the examiner's finding that the combined embodiment
variation of Takeuchi, embodiment D, may use the holograms of
embodiments A-C. Thus, the examiner is of the view that
Takeuchi teaches use of the hologram as shown in Figure 2 in
the structures shown in Figure 15. The examiner refers to
Column 18, lines 32-35 for such a teaching.
We are in disagreement with the examiner's finding that
Takeuchi anticipates the claimed subject matter. Firstly, it
is quite clear that Takeuchi actually refers to the disclosure
of Figures 3-9, as being the holograms to be incorporated in
the practical embodiments Figures 12-15. See col. 18, lines
43-54. The Figure 2 embodiment of Takeuchi is not an
embodiment contemplated as being placed on the practical
articles of Figures 12-15, since it does not contain an
adhesive.
As the predecessor to our reviewing court has stated,
"[i]t is to be noted that rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 are proper where the subject matter claimed
"is not identically disclosed or described"
(emphasis ours) in "the prior art," indicating that
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 are proper only
when the claimed subject matter is identically
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007