Appeal No. 2006-0158
Application No. 10/668,832
of the claimed note “provides a functional relationship between
the package and the words in that these words are what create the
expression of positive feeling that is being claimed” (page 9 of
brief, penultimate paragraph) this is not the type of functional
relationship between the printed indicia and its substrate
contemplated in Gulack.
In any event, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the
claimed note satisfies the test for the aforesaid functional
relationship, we are convinced that it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the message of
Ledman to request that the package not be opened.
Appellant also maintains that Ledman “teaches carving the
message into the box itself, or placing it within the box,” which
“teaches away from the present limitation of ‘placing a note on
the package’ so that the package may remain unopened” (page 7 of
brief, second paragraph). However, as explained by the examiner,
the separate card or sheet 15 depicted in Ledman’s figure 2 meets
the requirements of the claimed note (see page 6 of answer,
second paragraph). Ledman clearly teaches that the separate card
or sheet 15 of figure 2 is an exterior component that comprises
printed text which gives instructions to the recipient of the box
(see column 1, lines 54-57).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007