Appeal No. 2006-1434
Application No. 10/356,621
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Dec. 28, 2004) and the Examiner’s
Answer (mailed Jul. 27, 2005) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief
(filed May 16, 2005) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand
rejected.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Huston discloses the subject matter of instant claim 1
except for the composition of the stimulable phosphor. The examiner finds that
Papadopoulos describes such stimulable phosphors. The examiner further finds
motivation from the prior art to combine the teachings of the references, concluding that
the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to the artisan at the time of
invention. (Answer at 3-4.)
Appellants argue in the Brief that the references, taken alone or together, fail to
teach a storage phosphor embedded in a flexible binder. Appellants’ specification
teaches that embedding the phosphors in a flexible binder will reduce the influence of
forces made upon the phosphors. (Spec. at 12 final ¶ through 13 first full ¶.)
Appellants do not argue the limitations of any of claims 1-6, 19, and 20
separately. We will thus decide the appeal with respect to the claims on the basis of
claim 1. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The preamble of instant claim 1 purports a method for proving authenticity of an
item, wherein the item is provided with “storage phosphor particles embedded in a
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007