Appeal No. 2000-1794
Application 08/901,171
have printed thereon a second differing and responsive
completing portion of the message intellectually compatible
with and
functionally pertaining to and completing the message. The
examiner nonetheless concludes that
[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to provide the necessary printed matter on the
elongated tape for advertisement purposes as
necessitated by the end user since it would only
depend on the intended use of the assembly and the
desired information to be displayed. Further, it has
been held that when the
claimed printed matter is not functionally related to
the substrate it will not distinguish the invention
from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re
Gulack, 217 USPQ 401, (CAFC 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 packaging assembly
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 elongated tape which is required for
patentability [final rejection, pages 3 and 4].
Differences between an invention and the prior art cannot
be ignored merely because those differences reside in the
content of printed matter. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385,
217 USPQ 401, 403-04 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Where the printed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007