Appeal No. 97-0271
Application No. 08/186,212
As a preliminary matter we note that the examiner refers
(Answer, page 5) to "[t]he Bloomberg patents" as being
included in the rejection. However, the statement of the
rejection in the Answer includes only Mansour, Sanford, and
Miyanaga. Further-more, the examiner fails to explain how he
intends to apply the teachings of Bloomberg to the combination
of Mansour and Sanford or Miyanaga. Accordingly, we do not
consider Bloomberg as part of the rejection before us.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1
through 5.
Claim 1 recites, "said glyphs all being of substantially
uniform size" with "each of said glyphs having a plurality of
predetermined, discriminable graphical characteristics." The
rejection combines Mansour with Sanford or Miyanaga. Mansour
shows multi-height glyphs, which clearly are not of
substantially uniform size. As pointed out by appellants
(Appeal Brief,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007