gulack, bernhart, lowry, xiao

custom search

REVERSED 
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1792 Ex Parte Burgess et al 11272764 - (D) HASTINGS 103 GENERAL MILLS, INC. LEFF, STEVEN N

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2475 Ex Parte Szczesniak et al 11199938 - (D) DESHPANDE 103 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG LLP PREVAL, LIONEL

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2645 Ex Parte Pasqualino et al 12034327 - (D) BOUDREAU 103 Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation MEHRA, INDERP

2691 Ex Parte Lagnado 11249594 - (D) DIXON 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY JOHNSON, ALLISON WALTHALL

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2826 Ex Parte Sundstrom 11424019 - (D) KATZ 103 HONEYWELL/FOGG SANDVIK, BENJAMIN P

2859 Ex Parte Ghabra et al 12415164 - (D) GARRIS 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. / LEAR CORPORATION TORRESRUIZ, JOHALI ALEJANDRA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Kogan et al 11320028 - (D) FETTING 103 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG ROTARU, OCTAVIAN

In a non-precedential decision, our reviewing court reminded us of the applicability of the precedential In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969), and In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) decisions. We have held that patent applicants cannot rely on printed matter to distinguish a claim unless “there exists [a] new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1386 ([Fed. Cir. 1983]) . . . .
. . . .
. . . [T]he Board did not create a new “mental distinctions” rule in denying patentable weight . . . . On the contrary, the Board simply expressed the above-described functional relationship standard in an alternative formulation—consistent with our precedents—when it concluded that any given position label’s function . . . is a distinction “discernable only to the human mind.” . . . ; [see] In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 ([Fed. Cir. 1994]) (describing printed matter as “useful and intelligible only to the human mind”) (quoting In re Bernhart, . . . 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969)).

In re Xiao, 462 Fed. Appx. 947, 950–52 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential). Thus, non-functional descriptive material, being useful and intelligible only to the human mind, is given no patentable weight.