Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
means for reading the indicia if the first means are unable to
read the indicia, and means for determining whether or not the
indicia was damaged.
The Examiner finds that Chapman discloses (at col. 4,
lines 66-68) a mailing system having a scanner which rereads a
portion of the document if there is an error in the first
attempted reading (EA18). The Examiner finds that Billington
discloses an indicia system that includes an error detection code
as a means for determining whether or not the indicium was
damaged (EA18). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to use the system in Chapman to prevent unnecessary
interruptions and to use the system in Billington to determine
whether indicia has been damaged (EA18). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify Dietrich and Bruns in
view of Chapman and Billington 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 (EA18-19).
Appellant argues that he records and reads information about
the printing parameters to determine print quality (Br23).
Claim 19 does not recite the purpose of determining print
quality, but merely requires structure for reading and detecting
damaged indicia. Appellant does not point out the error in the
Examiner's proposed modification of Dietrich. We do not agree
- 28 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007