Appeal No. 95-3303
Application No. 07/960,892
highly economical manner. Accordingly, the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the
claimed subject matter. We, therefore, reverse the stated
rejections of the appealed claims.
OTHER ISSUES
With respect to prior art methods of producing laser
markings on a surface, appellants refer to EP 0 393 956 A1 as
a relevant reference. See the specification at page 1, lines
28-34. Apparently, appellants intended to refer to EP 0 383
956 A1, instead. The U.S. equivalent of the latter mentioned
reference is U.S. Patent 4,901,089 issued to Bricot on
February 13, 1990, copy attached. This reference should be
carefully reviewed by the examiner prior to passing this
application to issue. In this regard, note that Bricot at
column 2, lines 25-27 describes the deposition of ink layers
by such techniques as "photoengraving, smooth cutting, offset
or other type of method."
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007