Appeal No. 2000-1185 Page 5
Application No. 08/886,516
capturing data from labels affixed to multiple articles in a
single operation and not prevention of counterfeiting (Brief,
page 12).
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments by stating
that Moore’s printed identifier may be reproduced only after one
detects/locates the mark, produces the specific chemical agent
and is capable of duplicating the mark. Additionally, the
Examiner points out that after the mark is read, the information
must be decoded (Answer, page 7). The Examiner further notes
that Moore and Salive are pertinent to the particular problem
with which Appellants are concerned and address the process of
tracking articles by labeling them (Answer, pages 7 & 8).
To resolve the issue of whether the “undetectable mark”
disclosed by Moore is the same as the claimed “unreproduceable
pattern and encrypted information describing it on a label,” we
must first determine the scope of the claim. Claims will be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, and limitations appearing in the specification
are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852,
858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The inventor may define
specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so “with
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” and, if done,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007