Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
manufacturer in Dietrich in view of Cordery for the reasons
stated with respect to claim 3 (EA9). The Examiner finds that
Johnson teaches a tag device for attachment to an item of
inventory that includes the model number of the item (EA9). The
Examiner further finds that Schwartz discloses a postage system
that detects unauthorized copying of software by checking the
model number of the system during subsequent uses (EA10). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Dietrich in view of Johnsen or Schwartz to include the printer
model number and machine manufacturer 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 (EA9-10).
Appellant argues that claim 4 is not directed to a system
that enhances security. It is described that some postal
metering systems employ a Postal Security Device manufactured by
a meter manufacturer, a personal computer manufactured by a
computer manufacturer, and a printer manufactured by a printer
manufacturer and that the meter manufacturer does not decide what
printer and computer the user of the metering system will use
(Br16). Appellant argues that he has discovered that the ability
of the postal scanner to read postal indicia is dependent upon
the printer because different model printers have different
characteristics (Br16).
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007