Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
because it aids in preventing and detecting counterfeiting and it
increases the number of parameters that a counterfeiter would
have to manipulate to escape detection (EA11-12).
Appellant makes generally the same arguments as with respect
to claim 4, except that printer settings is mentioned (Br17).
Kipphan discloses a system for associating a single ink
density measuring device with a group of printing machines that
are typically of different construction or models (col. 5,
lines 3-6) and for remotely controlling printing machines with a
common ink measuring device (col. 2, lines 64-67). Kipphan
discloses that mechanical machine characteristics include various
parameters and settings (col. 2, lines 24-31).
However, Kipphan does not suggest recording information
about the printer settings used to print the indicia. It is not
clear to us why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
looked to Kipphan for solutions to postage systems or how Kipphan
suggests modifying Dietrich to arrive at the claimed invention.
We disagree with the Examiner's reasoning that it would have been
obvious to record any kind of information for reasons of security
and to prevent counterfeiting. The only motivation we find for
recording information about the printer settings used for
printing the indicia is found in Appellant's disclosure. We
conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness as to the limitation of recording information
- 19 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007