Appeal No. 2006-1230 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/137,586
We turn next to claim 3. We affirm the rejection of claim 3
because the material of resin film 7 that is masked is unreacted
by the ultraviolet irradiation.
We turn next to claim 4. Appellant asserts (brief, page 8)
that Saito does not disclose that the color of the reacted
material is different from the color of the unreacted material.
From the disclosure of Saito (page 6) that the resin film 7 can
be colorable material, and the disclosure of figures 1, 3a and 3b
of the characters being of different color than the unreacted
portions of film 7, we agree with the examiner that Saito meets
the limitations of claim 4. The rejection of claim 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 5. Appellant asserts (brief, pages 8
and 9) that Saito does not teach that the regions of the surface
beneath and laterally adjacent the markings are substantially
free of decomposition and damage. From the disclosure of Saito
of using a mask for the ultraviolet irradiation (page 6) and the
disclosure (page 3) that the invention solves the problem of
laser marking causing a channel with a depression in the resin
surface, we find that Saito meets the language of claim 5. The
rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007