Appeal No. 2005-0952
Application No. 09/908,282
its method of production, especially when, as in the present
case, the source and content of the information to be printed on
the form does not in any way provide an additional limitation on
the physical structure of the claimed form. As for the
recitation in claim 1 that the second label “is a receipt,” and
the recitations in dependent claims 2 through 9 and 12 through
17 regarding the content of the particular printed information
applied to the first and/or second labels of the form, the
examiner finds that such recitations are merely directed to the
intended use of the form and/or to the specific arrangement or
content of the printed matter applied to the form to facilitate
such use. More particularly, the examiner has determined that
the second label (34) of Korondi is capable of use as a receipt
depending on the indicia printed on the label, and that the
labels of appellant’s invention merely serve as a support for the
printed matter, with no novel and unobvious functional
relationship between the printed matter and the substrate
(labels). Based on such determinations, the examiner concludes
that there is no reason to give patentable weight to the content
of the recited printed matter which, by itself, is non-statutory
subject matter.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007