Appeal 2007-3545
Application 11/197,039
64; Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 405. See also, In re Miller, 418
F.2d 1392, 1395-96, 164 USPQ 46, 48-49 (CCPA 1969). Furthermore, it is
unclear whether any relationship between the claimed printed matter and the
composition is a functional relationship.
Accordingly, we determine that there is no functional relationship
between the printed matter (i.e., “one or two natural scent identifiers located
on the label”) and the label or the container (i.e., substrate). Because no
functional relationship exists between the printed matter (i.e., “one or two
natural scent identifiers”) and the label or container (i.e., substrate), the
claim recitation “one or two natural scent identifiers located on the label”
will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of
patentability. Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339, 70 USPQ2d at 1864; Gulack, 703 F.2d
at 1385, 217 USPQ at 404.
Because no functional relationship exists between the printed matter
(i.e. “scent identifiers) and the substrate, all of Appellants’ arguments
directed thereto must fail.2 Regarding Appellants’ argument that the “scent
identifier” claim feature is not disclosed by Wang, such is not relevant to
patentability because the “scent identifier” printed matter will not impart
patentability to the claims. Id.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-
10, 17 and 18 over Wang.
2 Claims 17 and 18 recite a kit and a method of cleaning fabric, respectively,
which include the “composition of claim 1.” Accordingly, Appellants’
arguments regarding the argued functional relationship between the printed
matter (i.e., “the one or two natural scent identifiers”) and the substrate (i.e.,
label or container) have no relevancy to claims 17 and 18, which do not
require the label or the printed matter.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013