Appeal No. 2005-0952
Application No. 09/908,282
Since we are unable to accord the printed matter in claims
1 through 9 and 12 through 17 on appeal any patentable weight,
and since the physical structure of Korondi’s form is the same as
that set forth in the claims on appeal, it follows that we will
sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 9 and
12 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As for the rejection of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on the combined teachings of Korondi and Amon, we
share the examiner’s view that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention
to use a security ink like that disclosed in Amon to print
certain selected information or security marks on the labels (32,
34) of Korondi to provide a means for preventing forgery or
counterfeiting of such labels. In that regard, we observe that
Amon expressly notes (col. 6, lines 44-49) that the photochromic
printing inks therein may be used on “labels and similar printed
documents for which measures against counterfeiting are
indicated.”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007