Appeal No. 2000-1813 Page 4
Application No. 08/954,156
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require a sheet of paper
having a first area having security indicia positively imaged
in white ink thereon and a second area substantially covered
by white ink with security indicia reverse imaged thereon.
However, these limitations are not suggested by the applied
prior art. The examiner correctly found (third Office action,
page 3) that Whiteside does not disclose a sheet of paper
having a first area having security indicia positively imaged
in white ink thereon and a second area substantially covered
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007