Appeal No. 96-1936
Application No. 08/274,695
1. A process for the production of an anticopy film, in which opaque, strip-like
coverings are applied by printing to both sides of the first layer of a transparent, multilayer
film in a regularly repeating manner and offset to one another in a defined manner, and
similar coverings are applied by printing to the underside of at least a second layer, offset
to the first coverings in a defined manner, wherein the coverings are applied to a film web
offset in the manner defined in adjacent or successive sections conforming to the
individual layers, the film web is then separated into the individual anticopy film formats,
and the individual formats are folded along the section lines in the layers of the anticopy
film, it also being possible for the separation and folding to be carried out in the reverse
sequence.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Curtis 3,914,485 Feb. 20, 1975
Austin 3,931,429 Jan. 6, 1976
The appealed claims stand rejected for obviousness ( 35 USC § 103) as
unpatentable over Curtis or Austin. We cannot sustain the stated rejections.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a process for the production of an
anticopy film that can be applied to a document to prevent the document from being
photocopied but at the same time enables the document to be read by the naked eye. The
anticopy function is achieved by a precision placement of printed stip-like opaque
2
coatings (coverings) on both sides of a transparent “multilayer” film in a regularly
repeating manner and offset to each other in a defined geometric manner to make the film
appear opaque for a defined viewing angle in a copying direction but transparent in a
2The "layers" are actually formed on a single transparent sheet in defined sections
which conform to the individual layers. Ultimately, such sections are folded over each other
to produce the "multilayer" structure.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007