Appeal No. 2000-1185 Page 4
Application No. 08/886,516
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 9, filed October 27,
1999) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to Appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by Appellants and the Examiner. As a consequence of
our careful review of the evidence before us, we do not agree
with the Examiner that the claims are properly rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 10 and 11
over the combination of Moore and Salive, Appellants argue that
neither reference teaches providing an unreproduceable pattern
and encrypted information describing the pattern on a label and
therefore, cannot suggest the claimed method of verifying
authenticity. Appellants further point out that Moore teaches
away from the claimed unreproduceable pattern since Moore’s
patterns are not unobtainable as the type of light suitable for
detecting the dye used in the pattern is disclosed (Brief, pages
11 & 12). Additionally, Appellants argue that Salive does not
support the rejection since the reference is directed to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007