Appeal No. 96-3586
Application No. 08/262,848
mixture of ink and an encapsulated surface etchant.
There [is] a great deal of difference between the
marking of a part and the use of an ink containing a
base or acid for marking a paper sheet having a
metallized coating, the thickness of which is in the
range of 500-2500 Angstrom units, see column 4,
lines 35-36. The ink in the marker of the
alternative embodiment does not contain an
encapsulated etchant. Indeed, an encapsulated
product probably would not flow through a porous
marking pen applicator. [Brief, pages 5 and 6.]
We do not find these contentions persuasive. The
appellant's argument that the "ink in the marker of the
alternative embodiment does not contain an encapsulated
etchant" is not commensurate with the scope of the claimed
subject matter. That is, independent claim 14 more broadly
sets forth the step of applying an indicia printed "with a
mixture of a visible ink and an encapsulated surface etchant,"
rather than microcapsules of etchant contained within the ink
as the appellant appears to argue. In the embodiment of Fig.
7, Altman discloses a graphic product or "part" that includes
a layer 88 of vapor deposited aluminum and a layer 94 of
microcapsules which is adhered to the layer of aluminum by an
adhesive 92. With respect to an alternative embodiment of
Fig. 7 it is stated that:
In an alternative embodiment of the product of
FIG. 7, granules 94 are in the form of microcapsules
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007