Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
increases the number of parameters that a counterfeiter would
have to manipulate to escape detection (EA17).
Appellant argues that he is not detecting a machine approved
by the Postal Service in order to allow the Postal Service to
make use of the resulting security system, but so that printers
that have not been approved will not be used (Br22). It is
argued that Appellant's invention is concerned with the print
quality of the printer that printed the indicia (Br22).
Kim discloses generating graphic indicia image information
from a composite of types of information (figure 3) and printing
the image using a computer driven printer having either a
customized printer driver or a custom printer to modify the dot
size, or the column or row spacing of the dots for the purpose of
preventing counterfeiting. Kim discloses that the indicia is
scanned at a postal facility to detect whether or not the indicia
is valid (figure 4).
Step a) is taught by Dietrich because, as discussed in
connection with the rejection of claim 1, the "information
relative to characteristics of the printer that recorded the
indicia" is broad enough to read on the machine parameters
recorded in Dietrich because the postage meter and monetary value
stamping machines in Dietrich include a printer and
"characteristics of the printer" is disclosed as including
hardware characteristics such as the manufacturer and model
- 26 -
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007