Appeal No. 1999-2433
Application No. 08/862,361
attempt to derive an understanding of the scope and content
thereof.
Claim 37 defines a sheet of security paper which includes
at least one area of reduced opacity of a size of at least 0.4
cm²
and having “an average uniform opacity less than the opacity
of the rest of the sheet” wherein the sheet is a two-ply sheet
including one ply which comprises at least one area whose
thickness is nil and wherein the two plies are directly joined
together. Our problem comes in understanding exactly what the
language “average uniform opacity” is intended to mean. While
appellants’ specification (e.g., page 5) uses this
terminology, we are given no definition as to exactly what
appellants’ mean by this language. Appellants’ make numerous
arguments on appeal (e.g., brief, pages 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9) that
the prior art applied by the examiner does not have the
required “average uniform opacity” required in claim 37 on
appeal and thus in the claims which depend therefrom. By
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007