Appeal 2006-3279
Application 10/039,668
Technology Center 2600
practicable -- i.e., unrestricted -- even if there is no component for
“measuring” the amount of time that the device has been turned on. The
claims are sufficiently broad to encompass subject matter in the prior art,
and are thus not patentable to Appellant. We sustain the rejection of claims
41 and 44, and of claim 42 not separately argued.
We also sustain the rejection of claims 51, 52, 69, and 70. Appellant
argues that Holub does not teach displaying an image with a conspicuous
marking if a viewing condition has not been satisfied. Base claim 51,
however, recites displaying the image on a display device with conspicuous
marking “indicating” that the image is not verified when the viewing
conditions have not been satisfied at the viewing station. What a marking on
a display device may “indicate” to a human viewer as claimed carries no
weight in the analysis of patentability over the prior art. There is no new
and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the
substrate -- i.e., between the conspicuous marking and the display device.
The “indication” represents nothing about the display device; if there is any
functional relationship at all between the information and structure in the
claim, the relationship is with the viewing station, rather than the display
device. The information displayed on a display device as claimed represents
a mere arrangement of data -- i.e., nonfunctional descriptive material as
discussed in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2106.01 (8th
ed., Rev. 5, Aug. 2006).
Finally, we also sustain the rejection of claims 53, 71, and 72.
Appellant submits that the rejection of base claim 53 is in error because the
method described in Holub does not restrict the ability to display the images
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013