Appeal No. 2001-0651
Application 08/134,187
examiner has not done in the present application. More
specifically, we do not see that the references relied upon by
the examiner (Copley, Bradshaw and Fabbiani) in any way teach or
suggest a token having a cavity with an imprinted disk therein
and two distinct layers of protective coating within the cavity
over the imprinted disk, as required of the token set forth in
claims 26, 56, 92 and 128 on appeal. For that reason, we will
not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 26, 56, 78 and 128
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In conclusion, we note that the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 5, 10, 31 through 35, 40, 73, 109, 341 through
348 and 350 through 354 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Copley in view of Bradshaw has been sustained.
We have also sustained the examiner’s rejections of 1) claims 6,
36 and 349 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Copley in view of Bradshaw and Beinbrech; 2) claims 7 through 9
and 37 through 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Copley in view of Bradshaw as applied above, and further in
view of appellants’ admitted prior art (AAPA) found in the
specification at page 4, line 9 through page 5, line 9; 3) claims
61 through 65, 71, 97 through 101 and 107 under 35 U.S.C. §
21
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007