Ex Parte Bleizeffer et al - Page 14



             Appeal No. 2006-2354                                                  Page 14                    
             Application No. 09/877,157                                                                          
             data elements.  Unlike in Lowry, the data in the present case does not impose any                   
             functional requirements on the claimed method or otherwise depend functionally                      
             on the information content of the data elements.  Nonfunctional descriptive                         
             material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been                       
             obvious.  In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir.                          
             2004). Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir.                          
             1983) (when descriptive material is not functionally related to the substrate, the                  
             descriptive material will not distinguish the invention form the prior art in terms of              
             patentability).  See also Ex parte Curry, [cite], aff’d. In re Curry, [Westlaw cite]                
             (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2006) (treating data as nonfunctional descriptive material).                    
                   We find this case similar to In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 163 USPQ 611                      
             (CCPA 1969) in which the court found a claimed method obvious in view of the                        
             prior art where the only difference was the addition of a step of applying the                      
             computer output to a plotting apparatus.  The court found that any person would                     
             know how to take the computer output and use it to control a drafting machine.  Id.                 
             In this case, the only difference in the claimed steps and the prior art is the step of             
             generating a privacy policy.  This step is described in the specification as                        
             generation of a list of all of the selected data elements in the policy.  Specification,            
             page 15, lines 28-30.  As demonstrated in the teachings of both Moriconi and                        
             Abraham, a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention would know how                    
             to take the policy groups and the selected data elements therein and generate a list                
             of these data elements.  We find that the fact that the data elements in the list relate            
             to privacy, rather than security, is not a patentable distinction, because the content              
             of the data elements does not functionally relate to how they are displayed or                      





Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007