Appeal No. 2000-1185 Page 7
Application No. 08/886,516
detectable. In fact, the combination of the unreproduceable
pattern and its description that is included in the encrypted
information makes the label unique to that specific article. In
other words, both an unreproduceable pattern and encrypted
article information containing a description of the pattern are
included in the label and must be verified together in order to
determine authenticity.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In doing so, the Examiner also has
the burden of producing factual basis either supported by
teachings in a prior art reference or shown to be common
knowledge of unquestionable demonstration. Our reviewing court
requires this evidence in order to establish a prima facie case.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268,
271-72 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, the court states in Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788 the following:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1 (1966), focused on the procedural and evidentiary
processes in reaching a conclusion under section 103.
As adapted to ex parte procedure, Graham is interpreted
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007