Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
obviousness. The argument that Appellant's invention is not
concerned with security (Br10) is not persuasive because the
prior art need not suggest solving the same problem set forth by
Appellant. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897,
1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (in banc) (overruling in part In re Wright,
848 F.2d 1216, 6 USPQ2d 1959 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). However, we are
not persuaded by the Examiner's reasoning that every modification
in the dependent claims would have been suggested for reasons of
improved security to prevent counterfeiting.
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 7, 9, and 16.
Claim 2 ) Dietrich, Bruns, and IBIP
Claim 2 recites that the indicia is Information-Based
Indicia. The Examiner finds that the IBIP proposes the use of
Information-Based Indicia (IBI) (EA7). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to implement the indicia in
Dietrich as IBI in view of IBIP. The Examiner also concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify Dietrich to use IBI
because it aids in preventing and detecting counterfeiting and it
increases the number of parameters that a counterfeiter would
have to manipulate to escape detection (EA8).
Appellant argues that IBIP does not mention or anticipate
that the IBI would not be able to be read due to the use of
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007