Appeal No. 2000-1185 Page 10
Application No. 08/886,516
pattern and encrypted article information that includes a
description of the pattern.
We are unpersuaded by the Examiner’s characterization of
Moore’s printed identifier as an unreproduceable pattern that is
only reproducible if it can be located and detected. In view of
the findings above, we conclude that neither Moore nor Salive
teaches or suggests an unreproduceable pattern on a label and
including its description in the article information that is
encrypted and added to the label. The invisible, but detectable
pattern of Moore itself incorporates and represents the encoded
data relating to the source and tracking of the article. The
labels in Salive are not for authentication and are detected for
merely tracking the articles. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Moore and Salive.
With regard to the rejection of claims 3 and 5 through 9, we
note that claims 5, 6 and 8 directly and claims 3, 7 and 9
indirectly depend from claim 1. After a review of Huddleston and
Pastor, we find that neither the references nor any well known
features relied upon by the Examiner teach or suggest a method
for verifying authenticity of an article by providing a label
having an unreproduceable pattern, including its description in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007