Appeal 2007-1286
Application 09/849,088
However, the Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive
material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the
descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84,
32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338, 70
USPQ2d 1862, 1863-64 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and our recent final decision in Ex parte
Curry, 2005-0509 (BPAI 2007), available at
http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?flNm=fd050509.pdf) (Affirmed, Rule 36,
Fed. Cir., slip op. 06-1003, June 2006).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites “receiving user identified storable information
comprising voice signals.” Appellant asserts, on page 3 of the Brief:
User identified storable information is information carried by a user signal
that has been identified by the user as information that, once received by the
system over a signaling channel, is to be transmitted (not in real time) by the
system over an available traffic channel to its destination at a user (or
system) specified time. See Patent Application, page 5, ll. 22-26.
(Br. 3)
We accept that Appellant’s Specification supports the proffered definition of
the term user identified storable information. However, we find that this limitation
is descriptive of the information and does not relate to a function of the method
claimed. That is, that the information related to user identified storable
information is not functionally related to the steps of receiving or transmitting.
Thus, we do not find that this limitation will distinguish the claimed method from
that of the prior art.
Nonetheless, we find that Sumner does teach transmitting user identified
storable information. As discussed in our findings of fact, Sumner teaches that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013