Appeal 2006-1310
Application 10/657,320
Mowry, Jr. and Harris would have rendered the subject matter defined by
claims 4, 7, and 9 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of anticipation of the subject matter defined by claims
1 through 3, 5, and 10 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner
relies on the disclosure of Brugada. There is no dispute that Brugada
teaches a printed substrate. The Appellant only argues that Brugada does
not teach that a printed substrate comprising printed matter having different
color densities as required by claims 1 and 5 and rub-off properties as
required by claims 13 and 14. (Br. 6-8.)
Even were we to accept the Appellant’s arguments that the claimed
printed paper does not include the security document described in Brugada,
we do not agree that Brugada does not anticipate the claimed subject matter
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §102(b). As indicated supra, we find that
the claimed printed matter defined in terms of color densities or rub-off
properties is not functionally related to the substrate involved. Indeed, at
page 3 of the Specification, the Appellant states that “[i]n order to enhance
the aesthetics of absorbent disposable paper products, it is desirable to use
pigment-based inks which produce 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, 1338, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004) stated that:
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007