Appeal 2006-1310
Application 10/657,320
that the background printed matter shown to have a color density greater
than the substrate color density is taught to have a different color density
than the security term such that the security term can be made more
noticeable. (See col. 6, ll. 19-40.) We find that Mowry, Jr. goes on to
exemplify at column 6, lines 34-37, a density of 15% for the security term
and 10% for the background printed matter, which are encompassed by the
“microscopic color density variation” recited in claim 1 and the microscopic
color density variation defined in terms of “color density ratio” recited in
claim 5. We find that the security term described in Mowry, Jr. has a rub-off
property necessarily significantly higher than that of the background printed
matter as required by claim 8 since it cannot be rubbed-off from the security
document if it is to be used for the security purposes. Moreover, as further
explained by the Examiner (Answer 4-5), Figure 1 of Mowry, Jr. itself
illustrates a security document having different color intensities for the
security term and background element on a paper substrate as required by
claims 1, 5, and 8.
Even were we to accept the Appellant’s arguments that the claimed
printed paper does not include either the security document described or
illustrated in Mowry, Jr., our conclusion would not be altered. We find that
the claimed printed matter defined in terms of color densities or rub-off
properties is not functionally related to the substrate involved. Indeed, the
Appellant acknowledges that the claimed printed matter is used to impart
only aesthetically pleasing characteristics (not functional characteristics).
(See Specification 1 and 3). At page 3 of the Specification, the Appellant
emphasizes that “[i]n order to enhance the aesthetics of absorbent disposable
paper products, it is desirable to use pigment-based inks which produce
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007