10483690 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2013)

Ex Parte Lawrence et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 8, 2013

10483690 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/483,690 01/12/2004 Christopher Robert Lawrence 03-1113 3842 20306 7590 02/08/2013 MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP 300 S. WACKER DRIVE 32ND FLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER SHEWAREGED, BETELHEM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1785 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/08/2013 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER ROBERT LAWRENCE and EOIN SEIROSE O’KEEFE ____________ Appeal 2011-012379 Application 10/483,690 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CHUNG K. PAK, and GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE. Appellants claim a security label having a first layer to which is adhered a second layer such that light interacts with both layers and gives rise to a detectable pre-determined wavelength spectrum and wherein the second layer is detachable from the first layer "and giving rise on the Appeal 2011-012379 Application 10/483,690 2 detachment of the second layer to a detectable and pre-determined angular change in the wavelength spectrum" (independent claim 1; see also independent claim 10). Representative independent claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A security label wherein the label comprises a layered structure consisting of a first layer to which is adhered a second layer so arranged with respect to the first layer that light interacts with both the first layer and the second layer and gives rise to a detectable pre-determined wavelength spectrum and wherein said second layer is detachable from said first layer in the event of mechanical friction, chemical interaction, abrasion or any other form of material damage or structural alteration and giving rise on the detachment of the second layer to a detectable and pre-determined angular change in the wavelength spectrum. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Becker (US 4,765,656, issued Aug. 23, 1988) and rejects remaining claims 2, 4, 6, and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Becker alone or in combination with other prior art. In contesting the § 102 rejection of independent claim 1, Appellants present the following argument: “[T]he examiner has not shown that Becker discloses a first layer and a second layer that are associated with one another such that they ‘giv[e] rise on the detachment of the second layer to a detectable and pre-determined angular change in the wavelength spectrum.’” (App. Br. sentence bridging 14-15). The Examiner responds to Appellants' argument with the rebuttal set forth below: “Becker teaches testing after detachment and comparing tested value or information with original value or information (see paragraph Appeal 2011-012379 Application 10/483,690 3 4 of rejection above, col. 12, line 32 thru col. 13, line 3 and FIG. 6 of Becker). If there is a difference between the tested value or information and original value or information, it is clear that the label has been tampered with.” (Ans. 10). In reply, Appellants reiterate the above argument and emphasize that the Examiner has not provided any factual basis for finding that detachment of Becker's second layer gives rise to the claimed pre-determined angular change in the wavelength spectrum (Reply Br. 3-4). Appellants' argument is persuasive. We find nothing and the Examiner identifies nothing in the Becker disclosures cited in the Answer which teaches that detachment of Becker's second layer gives rise to a "pre- determined angular change in the wavelength spectrum" as required by independent claim 1 as well as independent claim 10. Furthermore, the Examiner does not attempt to cure this deficiency of Becker in the § 103 rejections on appeal. It follows that the Examiner's § 102 and § 103 rejections will not be sustained. The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED tc