US 9242502

Summary of U.S. Patent 9,242,502

Title: Identification document and a method of producing

Assignee: As of the latest assignment recorded on October 30, 2025, the assignee is Thales DIS France SAS. The original assignee was Gemalto SA.

Inventors: Teemu Pohjola, Kristian Lappalainen

Filing Date: November 10, 2010

Issue Date: January 26, 2016

Abstract:
The invention relates to an identification document (21) comprising a non-transparent core (6), and one or more layers of a transparent material (14) arranged on at least a back (13) or a front surface (12) of said core. In order to achieve an identification document where forgery attempts are visibly detectable, the identification document (21) has a translucent security element in a region (7) where the thickness of the non-transparent core (6) material is smaller as compared to the thickness of the non-transparent core material in other parts of said core (6).

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

As of today's date, May 4, 2026, a review of CAFC dockets for 2026 did not indicate any appellate litigation for this specific patent.

Independent Claim 1:

This claim describes an identification document, such as an ID card or passport data page, that is designed to show evidence of tampering. The document has a main, non-transparent core layer where a photo or personal information is located. This core is covered by clear layers. The key security feature is a special, thinner area in the non-transparent core. This thinned-down region contains a "non-transparent element" (like a second, smaller photo). Under normal light, you can't see this security feature from the top of the card. However, when you hold the card up to a light source (backlighting), the thinner area becomes visible as a translucent window, revealing the non-transparent element inside it. The thickness of the core in this special area is reduced but is not zero.

Independent Claim 11:

This claim outlines the method for making the identification document described in Claim 1. The process involves several key steps:

1. Creating a non-transparent core.
2. Intentionally forming a "thinner region" within this core where the core material is not as thick as the rest of the core, but still present.
3. Placing a "non-transparent security element" (like a photo) into this thinner region.
4. Arranging personal information or a primary photo on the surface of the core.
5. Laminating one or more transparent layers over the front and/or back of the core.
   The final product is constructed so that the security feature in the thinner region is hidden in normal viewing light but becomes visible when the document is backlit.

Litigation Search Results

As of May 4, 2026, U.S. Patent 9,242,502 has been asserted in at least one known litigation case.

Case 1

• Plaintiff(s): Thales DIS France SAS
• Defendant(s): To be identified upon official court record review.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-01949
• Filing Date: 2025 (specific date to be confirmed)
• Status: The current status is pending. This case was identified via the Unified Patents portal, which references a filing in the Virginia Eastern District Court. Further details regarding the specific allegations, named defendants, and subsequent docket events would require a direct review of PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) for this case number.

Proceedings overview

As of the current date, May 29, 2026, there are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) on file for US Patent 9,242,502. Both the USPTO Open Data Portal API and a direct web search for PTAB proceedings related to this patent yielded no results.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US9242502 remain untested in AIA trial proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This means that none of the claims have been challenged or invalidated through IPR, PGR, or CBM processes.

The absence of PTAB activity suggests that the patent has not yet faced the scrutiny of these post-grant challenges. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the entire range of prior-art grounds under §§ 102 and 103 (for IPR) and potentially other grounds like § 112 (for PGR/CBM) are still available for a petition, assuming statutory requirements for filing are met. There is no estoppel landscape established by prior PTAB decisions that would bar a potential petitioner from raising certain grounds.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US9242502, a potential defendant facing assertion of this patent would have the option to file an AIA trial petition (such as an IPR or PGR, depending on the patent's issue date and claims) to challenge the patentability of the claims. The absence of prior challenges means that the patent's claims have not been "hardened" by surviving PTAB review, and all prior art grounds remain open for consideration.

Inventors

The named inventors are Teemu Pohjola and Kristian Lappalainen. It is highly probable they were employed by Gemalto SA at the time of the patent's filing, as the rights were assigned to Gemalto SA shortly after the filing date.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Gemalto SA. Gemalto SA was a multinational digital security company specializing in software applications, secure personal devices (like smart cards), and managed services for identification documents and payment solutions. Gemalto SA's primary line of business involved shipping products embodying claims related to secure identification documents, smart cards, and digital security. Gemalto SA has since been acquired by Thales Group and its relevant operations are now part of Thales DIS France SAS.

Assignment timeline

The full assignment record for US Patent 9,242,502 is as follows, based on records from the USPTO Assignment Center:

• 2010-12-21 (executed) / recorded 2012-05-14 — Reel 028200/0807

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: POHJOLA, TEEMU; LAPPALAINEN, KRISTIAN
  • Assignee: GEMALTO SA
  • Correspondent: Not specified in USPTO Assignment Center records.
  • Context: Original assignment from the inventors to their employer, Gemalto SA.

• 2019-07-16 (executed) / recorded 2025-10-30 — Reel 073450/0177

  • Conveyance: CHANGE OF NAME
  • Assignor: GEMALTO SA
  • Assignee: THALES DIS FRANCE SA
  • Correspondent: LUNAU, ANJA, THALES DIS FRANCE SAS, 6 RUE DE LA VERRERIE, MEUDON, FR F-92190. This correspondent also appears on a subsequent record for this patent.
  • Context: Gemalto SA changed its name to Thales DIS France SA as part of its acquisition by Thales Group.

• 2021-12-15 (executed) / recorded 2025-10-30 — Reel 072732/0080

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST
  • Assignor: THALES DIS FRANCE SA
  • Assignee: THALES DIS FRANCE SAS
  • Correspondent: LUNAU, ANJA, THALES DIS FRANCE SAS, 6 RUE DE LA VERRERIE, MEUDON, FR F-92190. This correspondent also appears on a prior record for this patent.
  • Context: Internal corporate transfer of patent rights from Thales DIS France SA to Thales DIS France SAS.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9242502
    2010 : Filed
    2010 : Inventors assigned to Gemalto SA
    2016 : Patent issued
    2019 : Gemalto SA renamed Thales DIS France SA
    2021 : Thales DIS France SA to Thales DIS France SAS
    2025 : Litigation filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. Gemalto SA and Thales DIS France SAS are established operating companies that develop and market products related to the patent's subject matter.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither Gemalto SA nor Thales DIS France SAS are listed as known patent assertion entities.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. Anja Lunau of Thales DIS France SAS is listed as the correspondent for both the "CHANGE OF NAME" (Reel 073450/0177) and the subsequent "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST" (Reel 072732/0080) records, indicating internal legal management by the ultimate operating company assignee.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. While two events were recorded on the same date, they reflect a name change and an internal assignment, with distinct effective dates (2019 and 2021), rather than consecutive transfers through unrelated shell entities.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The effective date of the last assignment to Thales DIS France SAS was December 15, 2021 (Reel 072732/0080), which is more than six months prior to the 2025 litigation filing.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Gemalto SA's change of ownership was due to an acquisition by Thales, not a bankruptcy proceeding.
7. Privateering — Not present. The patent is currently owned by an operating company that is actively asserting it in litigation.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is owned by an operating company that is asserting it, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion
This verdict is based on the patent's ownership chain, which traces from the inventors to Gemalto SA, and subsequently to Thales DIS France SAS via a change of name (Reel 073450/0177) and an internal assignment (Reel 072732/0080). Both Gemalto SA and Thales DIS France SAS are well-known operating companies in the digital security and identification document sector, actively developing and selling products relevant to the patent's claims. The identification of a repeat correspondent (Anja Lunau, Thales DIS France SAS) across the recent transfers further supports the conclusion of internal legal handling by an operating company.

For verification, refer to the USPTO Assignment Center search for US9242502.

This analysis focuses on identifying the most relevant prior art for US Patent 9,242,502. Prior art refers to any public information existing before the patent's filing date (November 10, 2010) that describes or teaches the same invention, or an invention so similar that the claimed invention would have been obvious. This section will examine the patent citations listed in US9242502.

The USPTO website (uspto.gov) provides tools for patent searching, including access to databases of patents and patent application publications.

Here are the patent citations listed for US9242502 and an assessment of their relevance:

1. US3414998A

• Full Citation: US3414998A, "Counterfeitproof, encapsulated identification card"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: December 10, 1968. Filing Date: June 1, 1966.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a tamper-proof identification card where various layers, including a transparent covering, encapsulate identifying indicia to prevent alteration. The core elements are permanently encased.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US3414998A broadly covers multilayer identification documents with transparent layers for security. While it discusses encapsulating information, it does not appear to explicitly teach a translucent security element in a thinner region of a non-transparent core that is only visible under backlighting, as claimed in US9242502 (Claims 1 and 11). Therefore, it may serve as general background art but is unlikely to directly anticipate the specific translucent security element feature.

2. US4222662A

• Full Citation: US4222662A, "Access control system"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: September 16, 1980. Filing Date: April 4, 1979.
• Brief Description: This patent describes an access control system utilizing identification cards with encoded data. The focus is on the system's operation and the encoding/reading of information, rather than specific document security features related to translucency.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is directed to an access control system and the functionality of cards within that system. It does not appear to disclose the structural features of US9242502's translucent security element within a thinned non-transparent core. Thus, it's likely considered distant prior art, providing context on ID card usage but not directly anticipating the claimed invention.

3. US4579754A

• Full Citation: US4579754A, "Identification card having laser inscribed indicia and a method of producing it"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: April 1, 1986. Filing Date: December 24, 1981.
• Brief Description: This patent describes an identification card with personal data inscribed within the card using a laser. The laser inscription creates indicia that are protected beneath a surface layer, making alteration difficult.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US4579754A is highly relevant as it teaches laser engraving of information into identification documents for security purposes, which is a method also mentioned in US9242502 for placing a photo or information. However, the critical distinction lies in the translucent security element within a thinned non-transparent core that is revealed by backlighting. While US4579754A discusses embedded indicia, it does not explicitly disclose creating a region of reduced core thickness to achieve a translucent effect that is normally hidden. This patent could potentially anticipate aspects of claims related to embedding information (e.g., non-transparent element 8 in Claim 1), but likely not the specific structural and optical properties of the translucent security element itself.

4. US4632430A

• Full Citation: US4632430A, "Secure and self-verifiable image"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: December 30, 1986. Filing Date: May 8, 1984.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a security document with an image that is verifiable by examining its construction. It generally relates to methods of securing images in documents to prevent forgery.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent broadly covers secure images. Without more specific details about the image's implementation, it's difficult to assess direct anticipation. It's likely general prior art in the field of document security, but not specifically anticipating the translucent security element and thinned core as defined in US9242502.

5. CA1279533C

• Full Citation: CA1279533C, "Security document protection process"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: January 29, 1991. Filing Date: May 16, 1986.
• Brief Description: This Canadian patent describes a process for protecting security documents. The available information suggests it relates to general methods of preventing forgery.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): As with US4632430A, this is likely general prior art regarding document security. Specific details would be needed to determine if it anticipates the unique features of US9242502's translucent security element.

6. WO2004074000A1

• Full Citation: WO2004074000A1, "Identity card and travel document"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: September 2, 2004. Filing Date: February 24, 2003.
• Brief Description: This international publication describes identity cards and travel documents, likely focusing on various security features to prevent counterfeiting and tampering.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This document would be relevant to the broad category of identification documents. However, without reviewing the full content, it is not possible to definitively state if it anticipates the specific combination of a translucent security element in a thinned non-transparent core that is hidden in normal light and visible under backlighting.

7. US20050247794A1

• Full Citation: US20050247794A1, "Identification document having intrusion resistance"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: November 10, 2005. Filing Date: March 26, 2004.
• Brief Description: This patent application describes an identification document designed to resist intrusion and tampering. It likely focuses on the physical construction to make unauthorized access or alteration difficult.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This document is relevant to the general goal of making identification documents resistant to forgery. However, the specific means of achieving this in US9242502 (the translucent security element in a thinned core) may not be present in this prior art. It could anticipate the general concept of a robust identification document.

8. EP1698485A2

• Full Citation: EP1698485A2, "Identification document with lenticular watermark"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: September 6, 2006. Filing Date: March 4, 2005.
• Brief Description: This European patent application describes an identification document featuring a lenticular watermark. Lenticular features are known for creating images that change appearance depending on the viewing angle.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent introduces lenticular watermarks as a security feature. While US9242502 mentions Changeable Laser Images (CLI) or Multiple Laser Images (MLI) in Claim 7, which share some functional similarities with lenticular features in terms of changing appearance, EP1698485A2 does not appear to teach the core invention of a translucent security element within a thinned non-transparent core that is only visible under backlighting. Therefore, it might be relevant to Claim 7, but not directly to the independent claims.

9. DE102007034716A1

• Full Citation: DE102007034716A1, "Security element"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: January 29, 2009. Filing Date: July 23, 2007.
• Brief Description: This German patent application describes a general security element. Without further details of its construction, a specific assessment is difficult.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is broadly related to security elements. A detailed review of its content would be necessary to determine any direct anticipation of the specific features of US9242502.

10. US20110266349A1

• Full Citation: US20110266349A1, "Contact smart cards having a document core, contactless smart cards including multi-layered structure, pet-based identification document, and methods of making same"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: November 3, 2011. Filing Date: December 24, 2001. (Note: The publication date is after the priority date of US9242502, but the filing date is earlier, making it potential prior art).
• Brief Description: This patent application describes various types of smart cards and multi-layered identification documents, including those with a document core and methods of making them. It covers a broad range of smart card constructions.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This application has an earlier filing date than US9242502 and describes multi-layered identification documents with a core. Given the broadness of its description, it's possible it discloses a core with varying thickness or translucent features, or a non-transparent element within. A thorough review would be required to determine if it explicitly or inherently teaches all the elements of Claim 1 or 11 of US9242502, particularly the combination of a thinner region in a non-transparent core for a translucent security element, visible only under backlighting. It could anticipate aspects related to the general construction of multi-layered documents or the inclusion of a microchip/antenna (Claim 8).

11. US20100196587A1

• Full Citation: US20100196587A1, "Security element"
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication Date: August 5, 2010. Filing Date: July 23, 2007.
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a security element, without specific details provided in the search results.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to DE102007034716A1, this is general prior art for security elements. Its content needs to be fully reviewed to assess any potential anticipation. Its filing date is earlier than US9242502, making it relevant prior art if it discloses the claimed invention.

Most Relevant Prior Art:

Based on the descriptions, US4579754A appears to be among the most relevant due to its focus on laser-inscribed indicia within an identification card for security. This directly addresses the concept of embedding information for forgery deterrence, which is a key aspect of US9242502. However, the distinct feature of US9242502's independent claims (Claims 1 and 11) lies in the thinner region of the non-transparent core that creates a translucent security element visible only under backlighting, and whether US4579754A explicitly teaches this specific structural and optical effect needs careful examination.

US20110266349A1 also stands out as potentially highly relevant due to its earlier filing date and broad coverage of multi-layered smart cards and methods of making them. The potential for overlap in structural features and manufacturing processes for secure documents suggests it could anticipate elements of US9242502. A detailed claim-by-claim comparison against this reference would be crucial.

To confirm actual anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a thorough review of the full text and drawings of each of these cited patents would be necessary to determine if every element of an independent claim in US9242502 is explicitly or inherently disclosed in a single prior art reference.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 9,242,502

To determine obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, one must consider whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was made. This analysis involves the Graham factors: (1) determining the scope and content of the prior art; (2) ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) identifying the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) considering secondary considerations of non-obviousness (though these are not part of the examiner's initial burden). A patent claim may be deemed obvious if the results are predictable from established functions in the prior art, and an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine references is not always required.

The patent US9242502 claims an identification document with a translucent security element in a thinner region of a non-transparent core, which cannot be seen in normal lighting but is visible under backlighting, and contains a non-transparent element. The method claim 11 describes the process of creating such a document.

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in this field would likely have a background in materials science, printing technologies, and security document manufacturing. They would be familiar with various lamination techniques, laser engraving, and different types of security features used in identification documents, such as those that are transparent, translucent, or incorporate embedded elements.

Analysis of Independent Claims

Independent Claim 1

Claim 1 describes an identification document comprising:

1. A non-transparent core on the upper or lower surface of which a photo or information is arranged.
2. One or more layers of a transparent material arranged on at least a back or a front surface of said core.
3. A translucent security element in the form of a thinner region where the thickness of the non-transparent core material is smaller, but not equal to zero, as compared to the thickness of the non-transparent core material in other parts of said core.
4. A non-transparent element located in said thinner region such that the translucent security element cannot be seen in normal lighting conditions from an upper surface of the identification document, and if the upper surface is viewed in backlighting conditions, the translucent security element can be seen from the upper surface.

Independent Claim 11

Claim 11 describes a method of producing an identification document, comprising:

1. Producing a core of a non-transparent material having a security element by forming a thinner region where the thickness of the non-transparent core material is smaller, but not equal to zero, as compared to the thickness of the non-transparent core material in other parts of said core.
2. Arranging a photo or information on the upper or lower surface of said core of non-transparent material.
3. Placing a non-transparent security element in said thinner region located in said thinner region such that the translucent security element cannot be seen in normal lighting conditions from an upper surface of the identification document, and if the upper surface is viewed in backlighting conditions, the translucent security element can be seen from the upper surface.
4. Arranging the layers such that one or more layers of a transparent material are arranged on at least a front surface or a back surface of said core.

Obviousness Combinations

Several prior art references individually or in combination could render the claims of US9242502 obvious. The core concept revolves around creating areas of varying translucency in an identification document to reveal hidden security features under specific lighting conditions.

Combination 1: US4579754A in view of US3414998A and general knowledge of ID document manufacturing.

• US4579754A (Maurer): This patent describes an identification card with laser-inscribed indicia. While it focuses on laser inscription, it acknowledges the concept of embedding information within layers of an identification card for security purposes. It specifically discusses identification cards with "laser inscribed indicia" and a "method of producing it". The document emphasizes placing information "deep inside the document on layers which cannot be reached unless the document is broken into parts."

• US3414998A (Berger): This patent describes a counterfeit-proof, encapsulated identification card. It details a multi-layered identification card construction designed for security. The card is "encapsulated" and "counterfeitproof".

• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the multi-layered security document concept of Berger with the embedded information approach of Maurer to create a more robust security document. The desire to make forgery more difficult is a long-standing problem in the field of identification documents. The general knowledge in the art includes using transparent layers over a non-transparent core and embedding security features within.

  A PHOSITA, seeking to enhance the security of an identification document by making embedded information verifiable without deconstruction, would consider creating a region that is less opaque than the surrounding core. Reducing the thickness of the non-transparent core material in a specific region, as described in US9242502, to create a translucent security element that is revealed under backlighting, would be a predictable modification. This is a known method to allow light to pass through otherwise opaque or less transparent materials, thus revealing embedded features. The "non-transparent element" within this translucent region would simply be the embedded information or photo described in Maurer, now visible under specific lighting conditions due to the thinned core.

  The key aspect of the thinner region being "not equal to zero" implies a translucent, rather than fully transparent, effect. This modification offers a security advantage over a completely transparent window by making the feature harder to detect in normal light. The concept of making a region of a document more translucent to reveal a hidden feature is a common design choice for security documents, as evidenced by later patents such as US10479128B2 which describes a "transparent ultraviolet blocking agent positioned within the region of a transparent window" to make a pattern visible only from one side under UV light. While US10479128B2 is later art, it reflects the ongoing motivation to create layered security features with selective visibility.

Combination 2: WO2004074000A1 in view of US20050247794A1 and general knowledge of using transparent layers and varied material properties.

• WO2004074000A1 (Sdu Identification B.V.): This document describes an identity card and travel document that incorporates security features within its layers.

• US20050247794A1 (Jones): This patent application describes an identification document having intrusion resistance, often achieved through multi-layered structures and embedded elements. It highlights the need for effective countermeasures against forgery that are cost-effective. It also discusses non-visible indicia made with ultraviolet or infrared ink that can be provided on a major card surface, along the perimeter, or extend through the entirety of the card, visible from both sides when extending through the card.

• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA, aiming to improve the intrusion resistance and verifiability of security features in identity documents (as per Jones), would consider integrating elements that are hidden but revealable. The document in WO2004074000A1 already details an identity card with embedded features. To make these embedded features more secure and verifiable without damaging the document, a PHOSITA would be motivated to create a region where the overlying opaque material is thinner, allowing for selective visibility.

  The idea of a "translucent security element" where the core material's thickness is reduced to make it translucent is an obvious way to implement a hidden-yet-verifiable security feature. This directly addresses the need for intrusion resistance by providing a tamper-evident feature. The non-transparent element within this thinned region would logically be the indicia or other security features already contemplated in Jones, now presented in a manner that requires backlighting for verification, adding another layer of security. The concept of having a "transparent window" in a security document to reveal underlying features is also present in prior art, such as US12269286 and US12227021.

General Obviousness Arguments for Claims 1 and 11:

The core inventive step claimed by US9242502 lies in combining:

1. A non-transparent core with transparent layers.
2. A thinned region in the non-transparent core, making it translucent (but not fully transparent).
3. A non-transparent element within this thinned, translucent region.
4. The specific functionality that the translucent security element (and the non-transparent element within it) is only visible under backlighting, not normal lighting.

Many elements are individually present in the prior art:

• Multi-layered identification documents with transparent outer layers and an opaque core: This is a fundamental concept in identification document manufacturing, as acknowledged in the background of US9242502 itself, stating, "An identification document typically consists of a non-transparent core surrounded by one or more transparent surface layers."
• Embedded security elements: Patents like Maurer (US4579754A) and Berger (US3414998A) clearly teach placing information or security features within the layers of an identification document.
• Varying translucency/opacity for security: The general concept of controlling light transmission through different parts of a security document to reveal hidden information is known. For example, "transparent windows" in security documents are known (e.g., US12269286, US12227021). While a "thinner region" is specified, a PHOSITA would recognize that reducing the thickness of an opaque material inherently increases its translucency, and conversely, increasing transparency by filling a cavity with transparent material (as described in dependent claims 3, 4, and 5 of US9242502) is a known technique to create visual effects in layered structures.
• Hidden features revealed under specific conditions (e.g., backlighting): The idea of a security feature not being visible under normal conditions but becoming visible under specific illumination (e.g., UV light in US10479128B2, or backlighting for watermarks) is a common security practice. The use of backlighting to reveal hidden features in laminated documents is a predictable application of optical principles.

The motivation for a PHOSITA to combine these elements would be to create a more sophisticated and difficult-to-forge identification document. By making a portion of the non-transparent core thinner, a PHOSITA would understand that the opacity in that region would decrease, allowing for a translucent effect under backlighting. Placing a non-transparent element (such as a laser-engraved photo or marking, as taught by Maurer) within this thinned region provides a verifiable security feature that is concealed in normal viewing but revealed when specifically illuminated, making forgery harder to detect. This combination simply applies known principles of optics and material manipulation to enhance existing security document designs, offering a predictable outcome of improved security. The "common sense" approach articulated in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. suggests that combining familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious, especially when the results are predictable.