Appeal 2007-3545
Application 11/197,039
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:1
1. Claims 1-10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wang.
2. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang in view of Cooper.
3. Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang in view of Cooper and Bacon.
The Examiner contends that the printed matter, “one or two natural
scent identifiers located on the label,” is not functionally related to the
substrate and, therefore, is not entitled to patentable weight in assessing
whether the claimed article is patentable over the prior art (Answer 4).
Appellants argue claim 1 only. Accordingly, dependent claims 2-18
stand or fall with claim 1.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER WANG
Appellants argue that the written content (i.e., printed matter) of the
label is entitled to patentable weight because the printed matter is
functionally related to the substrate (Br. 4). Appellants argue that a new and
unobvious functional relationship exists between the written content (i.e.,
printed matter) of the label and the substrate article because such written
content (i.e., printed matter) performs an educational function of providing
the consumer a positive scent experience (Br. 5-6). Appellants further argue
that the claim feature “one or two natural scent identifiers located on the
1 The Examiner rejected claims 1-18 under the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over copending application 11/059,099.
Appellants have not contested this rejection and it is not on appeal (Br. 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013