Appeal No. 2005-0952
Application No. 09/908,282
Appellant’s comments on pages 26-29 of the brief have been
considered, but provide no basis to change our determination
regarding claims 10 and 11. While it is true that neither
Korondi nor Amon provides an express teaching or suggestion of a
form “for recording a document,” we again note that such a future
use of appellant’s claimed form depends entirely on the content
of the information printed on the respective first and second
labels, and provides no new and unobvious functional relationship
between the printed matter and the labels, and also no structural
distinction between the form defined in the claims on appeal and
the physical structure of the form disclosed in Korondi.
As for appellant’s assertion on page 28 of the brief that
“the Patent Office is merely ‘piece-mealing’ references together,
providing various teachings and positively defined limitations of
Appellant’s method” (emphasis added), we note that the claims on
appeal are directed to a form per se, and not to a method of
using a particular form. Thus, it is the structural features of
the form itself which must distinguish over the prior art in
order to be patentable, or printed matter carried by the form
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007