Appeal No. 2000-0376
Application 08/753,236
Appellant argues that the recorded information is relative
to the characteristics of the printer that printed the indicia
(Br25).
We do not find where Smaha suggests copying the recorded
information as claimed. That it was known, in general, to copy
and generate a report is not sufficient to meet the limitations
of claim 35. The Examiner's general reasoning about preventing
counterfeiting as a motivation is not persuasive. We conclude
that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The rejection of claims 35 and 36 is reversed.
Claims 37 and 38 ) Dietrich, Bruns, and Zabele
Claim 37 recites that the printer records the status of the
printing parameters just prior to printing.
The Examiner finds that Zabele discloses a printer recording
the status of the printing parameters (EA22). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Dietrich to
record resolution relative to the resolution used, whereby the
printer records the status of the resolution used to record the
indicia just prior to printing (EA23). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to modify Dietrich in view of
Bruns and Zabele because it aids in preventing and detecting
counterfeiting and it increases the number of parameters that a
- 31 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007