Appeal No. 1998-2673
Application 08/557,138
with the appellants’ arguments that:
(1) the “difference between the British reference
[Lee] and Appellant’s [sic] novel contribution is
quite clear. In accordance with Appellant’s [sic]
novel contribution, the carrier member of the
value-bearing document once prepared is thereafter
formed with a depressed surface and with an
opening in such depressed surface whereupon a
cover foil is mounted OVER the opening ON the
depressed surface” (appeal brief, page 9); and
(2) in Lee, “there is no opening within a depressed
surface over which a cover foil is mounted to
cover the opening, but as illustrated in Figure 4
and described in the specification , the thin
thread element 5 is a part of the sheet instead of
being a cover foil subsequently covering the
opening and mounted on a depressed surface”
(appeal brief, page 10).
Since the secondary reference to Kaule, upon which the
examiner exclusively relies for a teaching of a security
element carried upon a planar surface of a value bearing
document, does not overcome the identified deficiencies of
Lee, we conclude that
the examiner has not met his burden of setting forth a prima
facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, the decision of the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007