Appeal No. 2006-0277
Application No. 10/234,305
only difference is in the content of the message, not in the
structure of the apparatus permitting such communication. See In
re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), where the
critical question was whether there exists any new and unobvious
functional relationship between the printed matter and a substrate.
In the instant case, there is clearly no unobvious functional
relationship between the content of the message (printed matter)
and the apparatus (substrate) which permits the sending of the
message. One type of textual content (e.g., a restaurant review)
would have been equally obvious over any other type of textual
content, as far as the structure is concerned, because the content
in no way changes the apparatus structure and/or function.
Appellant also argues that the apparatus in CyberDiner is not
“wireless,” as required by claim 1, because the apparatus of
CyberDiner must be plugged in (referring to paragraph 3 of
CyberDiner).
We remain unconvinced of unobviousness. The examiner has
acknowledged this difference from CyberDiner and reasonably
explains that because such connections are “well known,” it would
have been obvious to connect a computer to a network in a
“wireless” manner. We note that appellant never disputes the
examiner’s assertion that such “wireless” connections are “well
−6−
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007