Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
Morrison discloses marking materials containing
retroreflective fillers. Copies or marks using such material can
be readily identified, which can permit subsequent identification
of the source of the image (the type of machine, the facility
where the copy was made, or the specific machine unit) (col. 43,
lines 15-25, referred to by the Examiner). Different materials
allow distinguishing between different kinds of marks (col. 43,
lines 36-42, referred to by the Examiner). Other uses of the
reflective material are described at column 2, lines 32-65.
Mizutani discloses discriminating a kind of paper by
performing one or more operations (col. 3, lines 52-63, referred
to by the Examiner). The sensed type of paper permits selection
of the appropriate color conversion table (abstract).
Neither Morrison nor Mizutani suggests recording information
about the type of ink or the type of paper in the indicia; the
only teaching for these limitations is in Appellant's disclosure.
We disagree with the Examiner's reasoning that it would have been
obvious to record any kind of information for reasons of security
and to prevent counterfeiting. Accordingly, the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The
rejection of claims 10, 11, and 39 is reversed.
- 23 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007