Ex Parte Godbehere et al - Page 9





                 Appeal No. 2006-0551                                                                                   Παγε 9                                                 
                 Application No. 10/182,904                                                                                                                                    



                 established that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for                                                                            

                 patentability.  In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).                                                                                   

                         Appellants argue on pages 8-9 of the brief that Westre does not teach "laying-up                                                                      

                 at least one further layer" so as to "enclose the composite reinforcing member."  This                                                                        

                 argument is ostensibly grounded on appellants' position that Westre does not teach the                                                                        

                 steps of forming and positioning a composite reinforcement member as discussed                                                                                

                 above (brief, page 9; reply brief, page 6) and is thus unpersuasive for the reasons                                                                           

                 discussed above.                                                                                                                                              

                         Appellants' argument on pages 9-10 of the brief that Westre's disclosure of                                                                           

                 interleaving foil layers between the composite layers somehow teaches away from the                                                                           

                 method recited in claim 1 is not well taken.  Nothing in claim 1 excludes the presence of                                                                     

                 foil layers as any of the plurality of layers recited in claim 1.                                                                                             

                         In light of the foregoing, the examiner's rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated                                                                   

                 by Westre is sustained.  The like rejection of dependent claims 3 and 65, as well as the                                                                      

                 rejection of claim 4 as being unpatentable over Westre, are also sustained since                                                                              


                                                                                                                                                                               
                         5 Claim 6 is directed not to a method, but to a laminated member reinforced using a method                                                            
                 according to claim 1.  It is thus a product-by-process claim.  We note, in this regard, that the patentability                                                
                 of a product does not depend on its method of production.  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.  In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.                                                       
                 1985).  Thus, even assuming that the method of appellants' claim 1 were deemed to be distinct from                                                            
                 Westre's process of making the hybrid layer, the laminated member of claim 6 is unpatentable over the                                                         
                 hybrid layer of Westre if it is the same as or obvious in view of Westre's hybrid layer.                                                                      




















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007