Appeal No. 2006-1643 Παγε 19
Application No. 09/845,589
them. Monn provides instructions for making a box
which is not relevant to the present invention feature.
The examiner’s position (answer, page 5) is that claim 15 is
rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
From our review of claim 15, we find that the claim 15, like
claim 10 requires the production of a series of images, and like
claim 10 does not require that the images, which have different
characteristics, are of different images. The fact that
instructions are followed to produce the series of images does
not patentably distinguish the claim from the prior art.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 15 for the same
reasons as we sustained the rejections of claims 1 and 10.
We turn next to claim 17. Appellants assert (brief,
page 12) that claim 17 includes instructions about a visual
arrangement of images and text, and that neither FJCP nor Monn
address this. The examiner’s position (answer, pages 5 and 6) is
that
[I]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
provide any desired indicia, since it would only depend
on the intended use of the assembly and the desired
information to be displayed. Further, it has been held
that when the claimed printed matter is not
functionally related to the substrate it will not
distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms
of patentability. In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401, (CAFC
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007