Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
Claims 12-15 ) Dietrich, Bruns, and Morrison
Claim 12 recites that the recorded information indicates the
type of ink that was used to print the indicia. The Examiner
relies on the same reasoning as for claim 10 (EA14). For the
reasons discussed in connection with claim 10, we reverse the
rejection of claims 12-15.
Claims 17, 18, 25-28, and 30 ) Dietrich, Bruns, and Kim
Claims 17 and 18
Claim 17 recites that the reading machine is a scanner.
The Examiner finds that Kim discloses a scanner used to
determine the validity of an indicium on a mail piece (FR10;
EA15). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
use a scanner as the reading means for reading the recorded
information in Dietrich because using a scanner allows one to
determine the validity of the recorded information and
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 (EA15).
Appellant argues the disclosed invention rather than the
invention broadly claimed in claim 17 (Br21-22).
The indicia and the additional identification
characteristics in Dietrich have to be read somehow and Kim
teaches that it was well known to use a scanner to read the
- 24 -
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007