Appeal No. 2000-1185 Page 3
Application No. 08/886,516
c) encrypting at least a portion of said
information relating to said article;
d) securely associating said article, said
label, and a tangible representation of said encrypted
information.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
Examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Huddleston 3,701,165 Oct. 31, 1972
Pastor 4,949,381 Aug. 14, 1990
Moore 5,592,561 Jan. 7, 1997
Salive et al. (Salive) 5,607,187 Mar. 4, 1997
Claims 1, 2, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Salive. Claim 3
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Moore in view of Salive and further in view of that which is well
known in the art. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Salive and further in
view of Huddleston. Claims 6 through 9 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Salive
and further in view of Pastor.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the Examiner and Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 10, mailed November
26, 1999) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007