Appeal No. 2001-0595
Application No. 09/079,293
The only difference between the apparatus in Callahan as
modified by Stevens and the apparatus claimed by appellant
resides in the arrangement and content of the printed matter
that is set forth on the placard. The appropriate test for
determining whether such printed matter is entitled to
patentable weight is set forth in In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381,
1385,
217 USPQ 401, 403 (Fed. Cir. 1983), which states at 217 USPQ
404
[w]here the printed matter is not functionally
related to the substrate, the printed matter will
not distinguish the invention from the prior art in
terms of patentability. Although the printed matter
must be considered, in that situation it may not be
entitled to patentable weight.
* * *
[w]hat is required is the existence of differences
between the appealed claims and the prior art
sufficient to establish patentability. The bare
presence or absence of a specific functional
relationship, without further analysis, is not
dispositive of obviousness. Rather, the critical
question is whether there exists any new and
unobvious functional relationship between the
printed matter and the substrate.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007