Appeal No. 2006-2076
Application No. 09/747,651
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 7 and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellants regard as the invention;
claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-16, 18, 20, 22-24 and 26-31 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Markus ‘042;1 claims 3 and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Markus ‘042 in view of
Markus ‘601; claims 5, 11, 19 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Markus ‘042 in view of Godin; and claims 7 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Markus ‘042 in view of
Rhoads.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner argues:
It is unclear based on the description in the
specification and claims, how the tracer image is
implemented in the present invention, and
specifically what it’s [sic] function is. As best
understood, the tracer image appears to be some
sort of authentication or other security measure,
to restrict access to information (answer, pages 3
and 4).
1 The statement of the rejection in the examiner’s answer omits claims
30 and 31 (page 4). The examiner’s discussion of those claims in the
examiner’s answer indicates that their omission from the statement of
the rejection was inadvertent (page 10). Therefore, we consider
claims 30 and 31 to be rejected.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007