Ex parte ABERSFELDER et al. - Page 8

          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).           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007