Appeal No. 96-3553
Application 08/324,476
and Schwartz, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 6, which also depends ultimately from claim 1, as being
unpatentable over Dillon in view of Guinta and Butland. In
short, neither Schwartz nor Butland cures the above discussed
shortcoming of the Dillon-Guinta combination with respect to
the subject matter recited in parent claim 1.
We shall sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of independent claim 8 as being unpatentable over
Dillon in view of Guinta and Butland.
Butland discloses a system for labeling an object for
its identification and/or verification. One embodiment of the
system employs the use of biologic markers for this purpose (see
column 3, lines 22 through 49). Among the biologic markers con-
templated are synthetic polypeptides. As explained by Butland,
biologic markers may be incorporated into a
visible or an invisible ink for use in
labeling objects. It should be understood
also that such biologic markers can be native
or can be synthetic, including fragments,
single chains, and a variety of additional
forms currently developed or yet to be
developed [column 3, lines 41 through 47].
The combined teachings of Dillon, Guinta and Butland
would have suggested the vehicle marking arrangement recited in
claim 8 to one of ordinary skill in the art. Of particular
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007