Appeal No. 2006-0476
Application No. 10/365,258
least a portion if the equipment, wherein the information changes from time to
time.” Appellants reason that Fox’s label contains instructions provided by the
manufacturer and provides no suggestion that the label can be modified.
In response, the examiner states on page 8 of the answer:
The label in Fox is considered to be modifiable in that it “may be”
altered. Regarding the information as changing, the card is described as
containing instructions, or instructional information, which changes from
device to device. Fox teaches this in the first paragraph of column 7.
We disagree with the examiner. As discussed supra, we consider the
“information” on the label to be non-functional descriptive material, as such the
contents of the information alone will not render the claim patentable, i.e. that the
information pertains to the equipment is immaterial. Nonetheless, claim 32 does
recite that the information changes over time. We do not find that Fox’s
disclosure in the first paragraph of column 7 teaches that the information
contained on the label changes over time. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 32 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Fox.
Rejection of claim 35.
On page 5 of the answer, the examiner rejects claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. §
102 as being anticipated by Fox. Claim 35 is dependent upon claim 23 . The
examiner has not asserted, nor do we find that claim 23 is anticipated by Fox.
As claim 35 necessarily includes all of the limitations of claim 23 we will not
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007