Appeal No. 2005-1830 4
Application No. 10/180,228
established.”). But Appellants’ claims are directed to a process. The process requires
the formation of a product within the genus of the claims. That the claim does not recite
the specific steps required to form those recited products is of no moment. The claim
may be broad with respect to how the product is formed, but it requires it to be formed
nonetheless.
In order to anticipate, both steps of the claimed method with all their limitations
must be found in the prior art reference either expressly or inherently. Berger forms a
nonwoven web or roving, but that web or roving is a continuous intermediate article in
the process of forming a tobacco filter. The Examiner provides no technical reasoning
or other convincing logic indicating that this intermediate, the product tobacco filter, or
any other structure formed within the process of Berger has the structure and
characteristics of a disposable towel, diaper, or any of the other products to which the
forming step is limited. Nor can we agree that the Examiner has provided any
reasonable basis to conclude that a product of Berger inherently meets the
requirements of the products recited.
Because the Examiner has not established that Berger describes forming a
nonwoven product within the claimed genus as is required by the claim, we find that the
Examiner has not established anticipation within the meeting of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
For these reasons, we reverse.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007