Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
Claims 22, 31, and 34 ) Dietrich, Bruns, Morrison, Mizutani,
and Kim
Claim 31 recites printing information about the paper. The
Examiner relies on the reasoning used in the rejection of
claims 10 and 17 (EA20). Because the references do not disclose
or suggest recording information about the material used to
record the indicia, as discussed in the rejection of claim 10,
the rejection of claim 31 is reversed.
Since claims 22 and 34 depend on claims 10 and 33,
respectively, and the rejections of these claims have been
reversed, the rejection of claims 22 and 34 is reversed.
Claims 35 and 36 ) Dietrich, Bruns, Kim, and Smaha
Claim 35 recites copying the recorded information for future
reference.
The Examiner finds that Smaha discloses a system for
detecting misuse of a data processing that creates an output
report about the detected misuse, referring to column 3, lines
19-21 and 40-43 (EA21). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify Dietrich in view of Bruns, Kim, and
Smaha 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, and allows the USPS
to make use of the resulting security system (EA21).
- 30 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007