Ex Parte Lesur

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 20, 2012

10524563 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JEAN-LUC LESUR
____________

Appeal 2010-003284
Application 10/524,563
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, KEN B. BARRETT, and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003284
Application 10/524,563

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Maurer (US 4,579,754, issued Apr. 1, 1986).1 App. Br. 2.
Claims 2 and 9 have been cancelled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims 1 and 7
are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reproduced below with
italics added.
1. Personalized multilayer support in the general
shape of a card, such as an identification card,
comprising:
- a card body which is provided on an upper
face with personal information which is visible
from the exterior of the support,
- an at least partially transparent film which
is fixed to the upper face of the card body, and
- marker lines comprising weld beads
formed at the interface between the film and the
card body, the weld beads delimiting zones of the
film having increased mechanical strength with
respect to the film being peeled off the card body,
the marker lines forming tear scores so that the
film is torn at the tear scores if an attempt is made
to peel off the film, wherein the marker lines

1 In the Examiner’s Answer at page 3 the ground of rejection under § 102(b)
as anticipated by Maurer includes claims 1 and 3-10, which inadvertently
included cancelled claim 9 and excluded claims 11 and 12. See App. Br. 4,
Ans. 3-5. This appears to be a typographical error.
Appeal 2010-003284
Application 10/524,563

3
depict at least one identification motif which is
visible from the exterior of the support.

7. Method of manufacturing a personalized
multilayer support in the general shape of a card,
such as an identification card, comprising:
- an assembly step, during which an at least
partially transparent film is fixed to the upper face
of a card body,
- a personalization step, during which
personal information is placed on the upper face of
the card body so that the personal information is
visible from the exterior of the support through the
transparent film, and
a security step that is carried out after the
assembly step, during which marker lines are
produced by means of a laser beam so as to form
weld beads at the interface between the
transparent film and the card body, the weld beads
delimiting zones of the film having increased
mechanical strength with respect to the film being
peeled off the card body, the marker lines forming
tear scores with a view to causing the film to be
torn at the tear scores if an attempt is made to peel
off the film.

OPINION
Maurer discloses a laminated multilayer identification card adapted to
be imprinted with visible information by a laser recorder (the information,
for example, comprising patterns, letters, numbers, pictures and the like).
Col. 2, ll. 27-37. Figures 2 and 3 depict a cross-sectional view of separate
embodiments of a multilayer identification card. Col. 4, ll. 16-20. Figure 2
depicts a laminated multilayer identification card having an upper and a
lower cover film 11 and 12, respectively, and a card inlay 13. See col. 4, l.
Appeal 2010-003284
Application 10/524,563

4
65 through col. 5, l. 1. The optical properties of the upper cover film 11 can
be transformed by a laser, e.g., by decomposing or burning PVC film
material. Col. 5, ll. 10-40. Maurer discloses that above a certain threshold
of laser energy the reactions occur, including the formation of
microscopically fine black points 14, microscopically fine bubbles 15,
channels 16, 17, and 19. Id. The formation of channels 17 and 19 via a laser
include blackened 18 and discolored 20 areas. Id. Similarly, Figure 3
depicts a laminated multilayer card, including upper film layers 27 and 28
and card inlay 26. Although upper film layer 27 is non-transformable to a
laser, film layer 28, like cover film 11, is transformable by a laser, e.g.
blackened channels 29 and 30 can be formed. Col. 5, ll. 41-64. Blackened
surfaces 18 and 20, as well as blackened channels 29 and 30 form the visible
information imprinted on the multi-layer card 10.
The Examiner finds that Maurer’s microscopically fine bubbles 15,
channels 16, 17, and 19, blackened surfaces 18, and blackened channels 29
and 30 correspond to the claimed marker lines. Ans. 3. The Examiner
further finds that Maurer’s film material 11, 28 and card inlay 13, 26
correspond to the claimed transparent film and card body. Ans. 3.
However, Maurer’s microscopically fine bubbles 15, channels 16 and 17,
and channel 29 are not depicted, or otherwise disclosed, as formed at the
interface between the film material 11, 28 and the card inlay 13, 26,
respectively, as called for by the claims. See App. Br. 6. The Examiner also
determines that:
Even if it is deemed that these markings[, i.e.
element numbers 15, 16, 17, and 29,] might not be
located at the interface, the application of heat
from the laser in these areas still leave residual
Appeal 2010-003284
Application 10/524,563

5
material located at the interface, this material can
still be considered a weld bead. The heat from the
laser would inherently cause melting of the plastic
material in those areas. It is noted that Maurer
discloses in column 5 lines 26-30, that increased
laser energy causes channel 17 to "form in the film
which opens out onto the card surface" creating
darkened areas 18. This passage clearly suggest[s]
material at the interface of the card in the form of
areas 18. Again this can be considered a weld
bead.
Ans. 6 (emphasis added). However, Maurer’s use of a laser beam to blacken
film 11, 28 to imprint information into an identification card suggests that
the power and focal point on the laser beam is to burn, not melt or weld,
Maurer’s film 11, 28 and card inlay 13, 26. See App. Br. 7. As such, the
Examiner’s determination that the darkened area 18 corresponds to a weld
bead is based on speculation and not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. See Reply Br. 1-2.
As for Maurer’s channel 19 with blackened surface 20 and blackened
channel 30 having discolored area 32, for the purposes of this appeal only,
assuming that those elements were considered weld beads at the interface
between the transparent film and the card body, the Examiner’s finding that
such have increased mechanical strength with respect to Maurer’s film 11,
28 being peeled off card body 13, 26 is not adequately supported. See App.
Br. 7, Reply Br. 2. As discussed above, card inlay 13 is laminated between
cover films 11 and 12, and the blackened areas are representative of
decomposing or burning, not melting or welding, of film material 11, 28 and
card inlays 13, 26. See Reply Br. 2. The decomposed and/or burnt materials
do not suggest an increased mechanical strength with respect to the
laminated cover film 11, 28 and card inlays 13, 26. As such, Maurer’s
Appeal 2010-003284
Application 10/524,563

6
channel 19 with blackened surface 20 and blackened channel 30 having
discolored area 32, does not result in a “film having increased mechanical
strength with respect to the film being peeled off the card body” as recited in
claims 1 and 7. See App. Br. 6-8, Reply Br. 2.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-8,
and 10-12 is not sustained.

DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-12.

REVERSED

Klh