Appeal 2007-1182
Application 10/020,136
or distributor, or a team name, mascot or logo.” It follows that Micchia
teaches the claimed method of forming a reflective light glare reducing
means, except for placing the claimed printed matter. There is nothing in the
record to indicate that the claimed printed matter, such as the advertisement
or logo, is any way functionally related to the reflective light glare reducing
means. As such, I do not believe that the claimed printed matter (logos or
advertisements on the reflective light glare reducing means) is entitled to any
patentable weight. As our reviewing court in In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,
1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004) stated:
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.”
Thus, for the reasons well articulated by the majority and/or the reason set
forth above, I would affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections.
cam
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013