Appeal No. 96-3553
Application 08/324,476
relevance here are Guinta’s disclosure of the use of invisible
inks or paints to mark a vehicle and Butland’s disclosure of the
incorporation of biologic markers such as synthetic polypeptides
into invisible marker inks. The appellants have not disputed
that Butland’s disclosure in this regard meets or would have
suggested the peptide chain information carriers required by
claim 8. Moreover, the ink incorporating such polypeptide
markers would constitute a vehicle coating, as broadly recited
in claim 8, when applied to the surface of the vehicle. The
appellants’ argument that “Butland is in no way related to the
use of microfine information carriers which are incorporated into
the paint of an automobile” (brief, tenth page) is not persuasive
because it is not commensurate with the actual scope of claim 8
which makes no mention of paint or any other specific coating of
the vehicle.
In summary, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed with respect
to claims 1 through 7 and affirmed with respect to claim 8.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in con-
nection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007