Appeal No. 2001-0651
Application 08/134,187
b) inserting an imprinted disk in the cavity of the token;
and
c) filling a portionof the cavity with a first protective
coating and the remainder of the cavity with a second protective
coating to prevent scratching of the imprinted disk.
Claim 15 differs from claim 1 on appeal in that the last
step of the claim requires “filling a portion of the cavity with
a first protective coating and the remainder of the cavity with a
second protective coating to prevent scratching of the imprinted
disk.” As noted in the specification (page 21), the first
protective coating (140) and the second protective coating (142)
are distinct layers of different coating material. Each of the
other allowed claims 45, 78 and 114 includes a step like that set
forth in claim 15.
Claims 26, 56, 92 and 128 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Copley in view of Bradshaw
and Fabbiani, with Copley and Bradshaw being combined by the
examiner as in the rejection of claim 1 discussed supra.
Fabbiani is relied upon by the examiner as teaching a security
document including layers (2) and (5) which are respectively a
support and a hologram. The examiner points to Figure 3 of
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007