Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
with the Examiner's reasoning about preventing counterfeiting,
but the Examiner has provided other reasons for the modification,
which have not been shown to be in error. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 19 is sustained.
Appellant notes the limitations of claims 20 and 21, but
does not state what the error is in the Examiner's rejection as
required by 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv). Accordingly, the rejection
of claims 20 and 21 is sustained.
Claims 23, 24, 29, 32, and 33 ) Dietrich, Bruns, Morrison,
and Kim
Since claims 23 and 24 depend on claims 13 and 15,
respectively, and the rejection of these claims has been
reversed, the rejection of claims 23 and 24 is reversed.
Claim 29 recites the material used to record the indicia,
claim 32 recites printing information about the ink, and claim 33
recites printing information about the toner. The Examiner
relies on the reasoning used in the rejection of claims 12, 14,
27, and 30 (EA20).
Because the references do not disclose or suggest recording
information regarding the type of ink, toner, or material used to
record the indicia, as discussed in the rejection of
claims 12-15, the rejection of claims 29, 32, and 33 is reversed.
- 29 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007