Appellant loses in Ex parte HERBACH
As to nonfunctional descriptive material
As such, the disputed limitation recites
nonfunctional descriptive material that is not entitled to weight in the
patentability analysis. See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BPAI
2005) (informative), aff’d, No. 06-1003 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2006) (Rule 36)
(“wellness-related” data in databases and communicated on distributed
network did not functionally change either the data storage system or the
communication system used in the claimed method). “[N]onfunctional
descriptive material cannot lend patentability to an invention that would
otherwise have been [invalidated] by the prior art.” Ex parte Mathias, 84
USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
See also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887–90 (BPAI 2008)
(precedential) (discussing nonfunctional descriptive material).