Appeal 2006-1310
Application 10/657,320
vibrant high color densities when applied to the absorbent disposable paper
product.” As such, we determine that the claimed printed matter defined in
terms of color densities or rub-off properties is not entitled to any patentable
weight. The court in In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862,
1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004) stated that:
As the Gulack court pointed out, “[w]here the
printed matter is not functionally related to the
substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish
the invention from the prior art in terms of
patentability.”
In view of the foregoing, we concur with the Examiner that Mowry,
Jr. would have rendered the subject matter defined by claims 1 through 3, 5,
6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 15 anticipated within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §102(a).
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter of claims 4, 7, and 9
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the Examiner further relies on the combined
disclosures of Mowry, Jr. and Harris. The disclosure of Mowry, Jr. is
discussed above. According to the Examiner (Answer 8-9), Mowry, Jr. does
not teach the claimed texture substrate.
To remedy this deficiency, the Examiner relies on the disclosure of
Harris. The Appellant does not dispute that Harris teaches employing a
textured substrate to make a security document. (Br. 8-11). Nor does the
Appellant contest the Examiner’s determination that it would have been
obvious to employ the texture substrate of the type described in Harris to
make the security document of the type taught in Mowry, Jr. Id. The
Appellant only repeats the arguments directed to the limitations of claims 1,
5, and 8 discussed above. Id. Thus, for the reasons set forth above and in
the Answer, we concur with the Examiner that the combined teachings of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007