Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
about the printer settings used to print the indicia. The
rejection of claim 5 is reversed.
Claim 6 ) Dietrich, Bruns, and Official Notice
Claim 6 recites that the recorded information about the
printer is recorded in human readable code. The Examiner takes
Official Notice that it was known to use human readable codes
(FR8; EA12). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify Dietrich to record machine parameters in human
readable code to allow trusted personnel to recognize the
recorded information (EA12).
Appellant makes a shorter version of the arguments made with
respect to claim 4, except that human readable code is mentioned
(Br18).
Appellant does not point out error in the Examiner's
position that recording information in human readable code would
have been obvious. Dietrich itself indicates that the encrypted
number is imprinted in the open, which suggests that the number
is printed in human readable form, probably something like the
row of numbers 206, 208, 210, 214, 216, and 217 in figure 2 of
Cordery. Perhaps the reason Appellant does not argue error in
the Examiner's position is that printing machine information in
human readable code was well known. In any case, Appellant has
failed to show error. The rejection of claim 6 is sustained.
- 20 -
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007