Appeal No. 1999-2433
Application No. 08/862,361
Finding nothing in Jones or Vernois which would provide
for the deficiencies of Melling as noted above, we must also
refuse to sustain the examiner’s rejections of dependent claim
33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the basis of Melling combined with
either Jones or Vernois. As for the rejection of dependent
claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the basis of Thomas and
Vernois, we note that the examiner has pointed to nothing in
Thomas or Vernois
that teaches or suggests the process steps of independent
claim 23 on appeal as we have noted above. This is
particularly significant since the security paper pointed to
by the examiner in Figure 7 of Thomas is a single ply paper
with a reduced
thickness area (3) and not a two-ply paper like that formed by
the process of appellants’ claim 23 on appeal. Lacking the
noted limitations of independent claim 23, it follows that the
examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 on the basis of Thomas in view of Vernois will therefore
not be sustained.
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007