Wittich Kaule et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 19, 2019

14102223 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
14/102,223 12/10/2013 Wittich KAULE 552794: 140-09A US 1448
23713 7590 09/19/2019
Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (GS BOULDER)
4940 Pearl East Circle
Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80301
EXAMINER
GRABOWSKI, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3638
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WITTICH KAULE and MICHAEL RAHM

Appeal 2018-002322
Application 14/102,223
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KERINS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 39–49. 1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 The term “Appellant” is used herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Giesecke+Devrient Currency Technology GmbH. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-002322
Application 14/102,223

2

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a security element for security papers,
and a method for manufacturing a security element. Claim 39 is illustrative,
and is reproduced below:
39. A security element for security papers, value documents
and the like, having a microoptical moiré-type magnification
arrangement for the non-overlapping depiction of a specified
moiré image having multiple moiré image elements, having

a motif image that includes a periodic or at least locally
periodic arrangement of a plurality of lattice cells having
micromotif elements, each micromotif element
corresponding to one of the moiré image elements,

for the moiré-magnified viewing of the motif image, a
focusing element grid that is arranged spaced apart from
the motif image and that includes a periodic or at least
locally periodic arrangement of a plurality of lattice cells
having one microfocusing element each,

wherein the motif image is broken down into areal regions that
are each allocated to one of the moiré image elements and
correspond in position and size to the allocated moiré image
element, each areal region being allocated to a moiré image
element independent from the adjacent areal region;

wherein the micromotif elements corresponding to a moiré image
element are each arranged repeatedly in the areal region of the
motif image that is allocated to this moiré image element, and
wherein each areal region is precisely so large that the motif
image therein is not repeated.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 39–49 as being anticipated by
Commander (WO 2005/106601 A2, published Nov. 10, 2005).
Appeal 2018-002322
Application 14/102,223

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Commander discloses all limitations in claim
39, including that the security element has micromotif elements
corresponding to a moiré image element that are each arranged repeatedly in
an areal region of a motif image that is allocated to this moiré image
element, wherein each areal region is precisely so large that the motif image
therein is not repeated. Final Act. 2–3. In particular, the Examiner finds
that Figure 41 of Commander discloses a motif image broken down into
separate regions displaying a first ambulance, a bicycle, and a second
ambulance, generated from areal regions of micromotif elements that are
sized such that the motif image produced at each region does not repeat
itself. Id. at 3. The Examiner maintains that each of the first and second
ambulances and the bicycle are single independent images that are not
repeated, citing in support a statement in Commander that “the magnified
images of the bicycle will move slower than the magnified images of the
ambulance.” Id. (quoting Commander, 34, ll. 29–30). In reply to certain
arguments advanced by Appellant, the Examiner explains that the multiple
image representations of each of the ambulances and the bicycle “are
schematic and show the movement of the projected image. This is clearly
delineated by the arrows moving from one image to another. A viewer will
only see one image representation, which will move.” Ans. 3.
Appellant responds that Commander uses the plural, “magnified
images,” and, in Figure 41 shows plural images, thus failing to teach motif
images in different areal regions that are not repeated. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant argues that Commander “requires areal regions that are large
enough so that the motif image (e.g. bicycle and/or ambulance) is repeated.
Appeal 2018-002322
Application 14/102,223

4
The repeat causes the bicycle or ambulance to move horizontally.” Id.
(emphasis omitted). Appellant additionally posits that Figures 2 and 41 of
Commander only show a portion of the entire micro-lens/micro-image
structure, and, as such, they do not teach anything about the size or shape of
the entire areal region of micro-motif elements needed to produce the
magnified images shown in those figures. Id. at 10. Appellant also
challenges the Examiner’s findings as erroneously being based on Figure 41
and other figures in Commander, in that the Examiner (Ans. 3) refers to
Figure 41 as being schematic in form, and elsewhere states, in discussing
Figure 2, that, “[t]he schematics are in no way representative of the actual
structure, which requires many microlenses in order to produce any
discernable and detailed image (such as the ambulance and bicycles
shown).” Reply Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).
Initially, we note that we are not persuaded that any repeat of an
image is required to “cause[] the bicycle or ambulance to move
horizontally,” as argued by Appellant.2 Appeal Br. 8. Commander
illustrates, for example, in Figure 31, magnified images in the form of a

2 Appellant additionally presents arguments directed to the discussion in
Commander of a frequency vector for a magnified image array as
evidencing, due to the use of the term “frequency,” that the magnified image
must be repeated, otherwise it would be meaningless to describe the
magnified image in terms of a “frequency.” Appeal Br. 8. This argument is
not persuasive. Even if the term “frequency” in Commander were to
connote a “frequency of image appearance” or the like, which does not
appear to be the case, we do not see the Commander reference as precluding
the possibility that the frequency could be “1,” or equivalent, meaning a
single image being displayed. Similarly, we find unpersuasive arguments
advanced with respect to “pitch mismatch” and an apparent suggestion that
the moving of an image is the same as it being “repeated.” Id. at 8–9.
Appeal 2018-002322
Application 14/102,223

5
single letter “C” and a single, slightly larger circle, which each
independently moves upon tilting of the article of which they are a part, such
that they converge to appear as the copyright symbol “©” and, upon further
tilting, diverge again. By the same token, Figure 37 of Commander shows
what we understand to be a single image of a bird and a single image of a
snail at different, discrete, points in time as the article of which they are a
part is tilted, with the bird appearing to move faster than the snail, as each
image appears to move from left-to-right.3
Notwithstanding, we are unable to conclude, with the degree of
certainty necessary to support a rejection based on anticipation, that Figure
41, and the attendant description thereof, in Commander unquestionably
(necessarily) disclose single images of two ambulances and a single image
of a bicycle that appear to move in the same manner as the bird and snail in
Figure 37. First, the text describing Figure 41 refers to both “the magnified
images of the bicycle will move,” and “the microimage array of the bicycle.”
Commander, 34:29–30. The reference here to “images” could be a
typographical error, or could be an imprecise way of describing the
movement of a single image to plural positions across the medium.
However, the possibility exists that plural (repeated) images are intended to
be produced, possibly in order to aid in the desired appearance that the
bicycle(s) move more slowly than the ambulances as the medium is tilted.

3 The “C” and larger circle images, and the snail and bird, examples appear
to be created using techniques different than that set forth and illustrated in
Figure 41. They are mentioned mainly to cast doubt on the argument that
multiple, repeated, images are needed to create the appearance of movement
of a magnified image.
Appeal 2018-002322
Application 14/102,223

6
We additionally do not see in Figure 41, as we did with Figure 37, a
clear depiction of the positions of first and second ambulance images
relative to a single bicycle image at particular points in time. Instead, Figure
41 displays three each of the first and second ambulance(s), and five of the
bicycle(s), with seemingly different intervals represented by arrows,
presumable connoting movement, extending to each successive rendering of
the ambulance or bicycle in the drawing figure.
Finally, the admittedly schematic nature of the microlens array and
microimage array in Figure 41 do not allow for a definite finding that only a
single magnified image of each of the first and second ambulances and the
bicycle will necessarily result or is necessarily intended to result in that
embodiment.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 39 as being anticipated by
Commander is not sustained. Independent claim 44 includes essentially the
same limitations discussed above that are not adequately disclosed by
Commander, and the rejection of that claim is also not sustained. The
rejection is further not sustained as to dependent claims 40–43 and 45–49.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 39–49 as being anticipated by
Commander is reversed.

Appeal 2018-002322
Application 14/102,223

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
39–49 § 102(b)
Commander
39–49
Overall Outcome

39–49

REVERSED