Appeal No. 1997-1001
Application No. 08/369,202
Although the processing aspects of the appealed product-by-
process claims require the separate and sequential addition of
urea and melamine to the resole resin solution, the appealed
claims are nevertheless directed to a product, i.e., an
aqueous binder solution. Thus, the determination of the
patentability of the appealed claims must be based on the
product itself, not the process of making it. See In re
Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697,
227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(“If the product in a
product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a
product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even
though the prior art product was made by a different
process.”) From a structural perspective, it reasonably
appears that the aqueous binder solution defined by the herein
product-by-process claims is the same as or only slightly
different from the suggested prior art ammonia, urea, melamine
modified resin binder solution of Coventry.
We have not ignored appellants’ arguments which stress
that appellants’ intention is to produce a “prereact binder
with greater binding efficiency.” See the reply brief at page
2. However, appellants’ claims are directed to an aqueous
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007