Appeal 2007-1315
Application 09/828,437
1 impart functionality when employed as a computer component. “Nonfunctional
2 descriptive material” includes but is not limited to music, literary works and a
3 compilation or mere arrangement of data.
4 When presented with a claim comprising descriptive material, an Examiner
5 must determine whether the claimed nonfunctional descriptive material should be
6 given patentable weight. The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider
7 all claim limitations when determining patentability of an invention over the prior
8 art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The
9 PTO may not disregard claim limitations comprised of printed matter. See
10 Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1384-85, 217 USPQ at 403; see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450
11 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981). However, the examiner need not give
12 patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional
13 relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry,
14 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367
15 F.3d 1336, 1338, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1863-64 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
16 Thus, when the prior art describes all the claimed structural and functional
17 relationships between the descriptive material and the substrate, but the prior art
18 describes a different descriptive material than the claim, then the descriptive
19 material is nonfunctional and will not be given any patentable weight. That is,
20 such a scenario presents no new and unobvious functional relationship between the
21 descriptive material and the substrate.
22
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013