Appeal No. 1999-2433
Application No. 08/862,361
based on Melling in view of Jones and also on Melling or
Thomas in view of Vernois.
Independent claim 23 defines a process for manufacturing
a sheet of paper which includes at least one region having
reduced
thickness relative to the thickness of the rest of the sheet.
The only difference pointed to by the examiner (answer, page
5) between the process of claim 23 on appeal and that in
Melling is the recitation in claim 23 regarding the thickness
of the reduced thickness region. In the examiner’s opinion,
such difference would have been obvious
since the claimed area depends on the design of the
security and the desired strength (area of reduced
thickness having reduced strength as compared with
the overall sheet) and the desired degree of reduced
opacity or increased transparency or translucency.
In the paragraph bridging pages 9 and 10 of the brief,
appellants argue that Melling does not teach or suggest the
particular process set forth in claim 23. We agree. While we
find a teaching in Melling of a sheet having at least one
region of reduced thickness having a thickness as recited in
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007