Appeal 2006-1310
Application 10/657,320
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 Brugada
would have rendered the subject matter defined by claims 1 through 3, 5,
and 10 through 14 anticipated within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §102(a).
V. CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
VI. TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2005).
AFFIRMED
cam
The Procter & Gamble Company
Intellectual Property Division
Winton Hill Technical Center
Box 161
6110 Center Hill Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45224
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: November 3, 2007