Appeal No. 1999-2433
Application No. 08/862,361
In summary, the examiner's rejections of claims 17
through 28, 30 through 35 and 37 through 39 as set forth in
the examiner’s answer (pages 3-5) have been reversed. A new
rejection of claims 17 through 22, 30 through 32, 35 and 37
through 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been added
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
In addition to the foregoing, we REMAND this application
to the examiner to determine if additional prior art
considered along with Melling, Thomas and Howes would render
obvious appellants’ method as set forth in independent claim
23 and the claims which depend therefrom, and also to consider
product-by-
process claim 28 in that same regard. For example, the
examiner may wish to consider EP 0059056 mentioned on page 3
of Melling relating to a cylinder mold papermaking machine. In
addition, if
appellants’ claim 37 to the sheet of security paper itself
were to be adequately clarified and made definite, the
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007