Appeal No. 2000-1959
Application No. 09/032,928
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Horst in view of Stanisci.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 9, mailed Apr. 24, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 8, filed Feb. 23, 2000) for
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner maintains that Horst teaches the use of diffraction gratings for
plural planes for the coding of information in addition to the use of diffraction gratings
for control and separation functions. (See answer at pages 3-5.) We agree with the
examiner. The examiner maintains that Stanisci teaches the obliteration of material to
increase the authentication and security in the formation of a hologram. (See answer at
page 4.) We agree with the examiner, but we fail to understand why it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to look to the
methodology of formation of a hologram with an already formed security code. The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007