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. 12Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007