Appeal No. 94-3823
Application 07/812,249
the art would know to use that amount of color which is
distinguishable by a color scanning but not by humans.
The examiner also views the following language in claim 11
to be indefinite: "A method of permitting recognition." Answer
at 5. However, adding the term "permitting" to language that has
already been found to be definite (e.g., claim 1 - "A method of
recognizing a color coded character"), does not make the language
indefinite. These words reasonably appear to mean what they say
and do not, as the examiner argues, suggest "some sort of
security measure to prevent access to a recognition system."
Answer at 5. Finally, claim 11's phrase "providing a first
means for processing" is also reasonably definite because it
merely means selecting one of the two optical character
recognition means. In view of the above, we will not sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
Obviousness rejections
The examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Martin in view of Clark and claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007