Appeal No. 96-1936
Application No. 08/274,695
somewhat inclined viewing direction. Thus the anticopy film functions in a manner similar
to a venetian blind. Accordingly, a document covered with such an anticopy film is
unreadable straight on, but readable at a convenient angle, and since copiers capture their
images perpendicularly to the document being copied, the document is rendered
uncopyable. Although the claims on appeal, as drafted, are not a model of clarity, the
claimed subject matter can be understood when read in light of the specification and the
drawings, particularly figure 6.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner has cited Curtis and Austin, each of
which deals with methods for applying foamable resinous compositions to a substrate to
make textured surface covering materials for use as floor coverings, wall coverings, shelf
coverings and working tops. Although these references disclose that the coverings may
be provided with a printed pattern for decorative purposes, there is no teaching in the
references regarding an anticopy function. Thus the references do not teach the need for
precisely placed printed strip-like coatings capable of providing an anticopy function as
required by the appealed method. Apparently, because the claim language “anticopy film”
appears in the preamble of the claims, the examiner considers this language as defining
an intended use of the film and has given it no weight. Here, the claim language in
question necessarily imposes additional functional and structural limitations on the claimed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007