Appeal No. 96-3553
Application 08/324,476
Turning first to the rejection of independent claim 1,
Dillon relates to “the protection of articles through the
identification thereof by micro-dots displaying indicia which
identifies the owner, together with the method of preparing such
micro-dots and using them for identification purposes” (column 1,
lines 4 through 8). As described more specifically in Dillon’s
Abstract,
[t]he micro-dots are small pieces of foil of
any of several shapes with square being the
preferred shape, and having an area defined
by sides having an extent in the nature of
0.007 inch. Printed on the area of each dot
is indicia identifying a particular owner.
The method consists essentially of printing
the indicia in multiple units on a large
plate with the images being reduced in size
by step photographing process, which results
in a glass slide having the negatives of the
images developed thereon. These images are
transferred photographically to a piece of
film of the same size which is cut into the
individual dots. It is then immersed in a
fluid, such as a clear resin, and applied to
an article that is to be protected. The
article or any part thereof with the
microdots thereon is retrieved and examined
by a microscope to identify the owner.
The examiner concedes that Dillon does not meet the
limitations in claim 1 requiring the microscopic information
carriers, which correspond to Dillon’s micro-dots, to be
“contained in a vehicle coating . . . at least at selected
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007