Appeal 2006-1310
Application 10/657,320
IV. FACTUAL FINDINGS AND CONCULSIONS
Upon careful consideration of the claims, specification and prior art
references, including the arguments advanced by both the Appellant and the
Examiner in support of their respective positions, we determine that the
Examiner’s §§102 (b) and 103(a) rejections are well-founded. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 15 on appeal
under §§102(b) and 103(a) for the reasons set forth in the Answer and
below.
As evidence of anticipation of the subject matter defined by claims 1
through 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner
relies on the disclosure of Mowry, Jr. (See Answer 3.) There is no dispute
that Mowry, Jr. teaches a printed substrate comprising a substrate having
two opposing outer surfaces with at least one of the surfaces including
indicia comprised of printed elements. The Appellant only argues that
Mowry, Jr. does not teach that its substrate has printed matter having
different color densities as recited in claims 1 and 5 and different rub-off
properties as recited in claim 8. (Br. 3-6.) We do not agree.
Initially, we observe that the paper substrate described by Mowry, Jr.
necessarily provides the claimed substrate color density which according to
the Appellant includes “the color density of the unprinted areas of substrate”
as indicated supra. We observe that Mowry, Jr. also teach a background
printed matter having a color density corresponding to the claimed
background color density and a security term having a color density
corresponding to the claimed print element color density. See Figure 1,
together with columns 4-6. Specifically, we find that Mowry, Jr. teaches
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007