Appeal No. 2006-0549
Application No. 10/181,184
Representative claim 4 is reproduced as follows:
4. An authenticating apparatus for documents of value
comprising a LED which emits UV radiation in a wavelength range at which non-
genuine documents have a different reflectivity than genuine documents; a
transport system for transporting documents past the LED so that they are
irradiated with UV radiation; a detector for detecting the reflected UV; and a
processor for comparing the intensity of the reflected UV radiation with a threshold
to determine the authenticity of the documents.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Lebens et al. (Lebens) 6,305,818 Oct. 23, 2001
Jones et al. (Jones) 6,363,164 Mar. 26, 2002
Claims 4 and 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of
obviousness the examiner offers Jones in view of Lebens.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make
reference to the brief and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner
as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007