Appeal No. 96-2726
Application 08/005,401
of a cylinder or dandy roll, and employing the patterned roll to
make the watermark paper.
Appealed claims 1 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Denton in view of Izard. Claim 4
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Denton in view of Izard and Japanese ‘248. Also, claims 5, 7 and
8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Denton in view of Izard and Edge and either Waters or Fearing.
We have carefully reviewed the respective positions advanced
by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we agree with
appellants that the claimed subject matter would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
teachings of the applied prior art. Accordingly, for essentially
the reasons expressed by appellants in their brief, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejections.
All the applied references relating to making watermark
paper, namely, Denton, Waters and Fearing, employ wire cloth on a
dandy roll or the like. None of these references, either in the
inventive disclosure or the discussion of the prior art, teaches
or suggests using appellants’ synthetic or natural fiber lace to
produce watermark paper. On the other hand, both Izard and Edge,
the references which disclose the use of fabric patterns to
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007