Appeal No. 2006-1643 Παγε 20
Application No. 09/845,589
1983). The fact that the content of the printed matter
placed on the substrate may render the device more
convenient by providing an individual with a specific
type of indicia does not alter the functional
relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the
printed matter is not the kind of functional
relationship necessary for patentability. Thus, there
is no novel and unobvious functional relationship
between the printed matter and the substrate which is
required for patentability.
We agree. Claim 17 recites that the instructions include a
visual arrangement of images and text. The particular
instructions recited are not functionally related to the
substrate and do not distinguish claim 17 from the prior
art. The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
sustained. We turn next to claim 18. Appellants’ position
(brief,
page 12) is that the reasons for the reversal of the rejection of
claim 1 are incorporated herein. Appellants add that there is no
additional information printed along with the instructions taught
or suggested by FJCP or Monn, as Monn has a separate instruction
sheet and FJCP has no printed instructions. The examiner’s
position (answer, page 6) is that claim 18 is rejected for the
same reasons as claim 1.
Ast the outset, we make reference to our findings, supra,
with respect to the teachings and suggestions of FJCP and Monn.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007