Appeal 2007-0796
Application 10/236,088
functionally related to the calendar strip on which they are printed. They
merely convey information to the user in the same manner they would if
they were printed elsewhere. Appellant is not entitled to a patent to an
otherwise unpatentable method of making a known product by simply
attaching a set of instructions to that product. See id.
Appellant's argument thus does not demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 36 and 39 as unpatentable over Fisher in view of Jeter and
Mengel. The rejection is sustained.
Rejection (8)
Appellant's only argument as to why the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 35 as unpatentable over Fisher in view of Grosskopf is that Fisher fails
to teach or suggest a container and cap for the container having an aperture
through which an elongated member may be extracted, as recited in claim
33, from which claim 35 depends, and Grosskopf does not make up for that
deficiency (App. Br. 31). At the outset, we point out that claim 33 merely
requires that one of the cap and container houses an elongated member
extractable therefrom through an aperture therein. As discussed above with
regard to rejection (3), the Examiner points out that Fisher's screw cap plug
18 and element 10 (i.e., barrel 11 and mechanical pencil 15) respond to the
cap and container, respectively (Ans. 16), and Appellant does not challenge
that position. Further, Fisher's calendar strip 39 extends through elongated
slot 16 in barrel 11. Consequently, the deficiency of Fisher alleged by
Appellant does not in fact exist and thus need not be cured by Grosskopf.
Appellant's argument fails to demonstrate error in the Examiner's
rejection. The rejection is sustained.
26
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013