Ex Parte 6196681 et al - Page 8


                     Appeal 2007-0554                                                                                                             
                     Reexamination Nos. 90/006,118 & 90/006,254                                                                                   
                     Patent 6,196,681 B1                                                                                                          
                     sequentially shot in first and second mold cavities.  As such, the rigid plastic                                             
                     and soft plastic which comprise the front frame are bonded at the molecular                                                  
                     level to provide ultimate assurance against separation of the two materials                                                  
                     during use” (Conway, p. 2, first full para.).  Conway’s “inventive method                                                    
                     may be used . . . to form a single brow bar to which single or paired lenses                                                 
                     are mounted” (Conway, p. 7, ll. 6-8).  In fact, we find that Conway                                                          
                     reasonably appears to describe every physical and chemical limitation of the                                                 
                     unitary structure defined by Appellant’s Claim 1 (See Conway, pp. 2-3,                                                       
                     Summary of the Invention).  In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ                                                        
                     964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985):                                                                                                   
                              [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined                                                  
                              by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product                                              
                              itself. . . . .                                                                                                     
                                      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 product was made by a different                                                  
                              process.                                                                                                            
                              No limitation of the process of making the claimed “unitary structure”                                              
                     as defined in Appellant’s Claim 1 or Specification undermines our finding                                                    
                     that every physical and chemical limitation of the product Appellant claims                                                  
                     is described by Conway.  Accordingly, we find that the unitary structure                                                     
                     defined by Applicant’s Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as                                                      
                     anticipated by Conway alone.  Therefore, we also conclude that the unitary                                                   
                     structure defined by Applicant’s Claim 1 is unpatentable for obviousness                                                     
                     under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Conway’s disclosure.  See In re Pearson,                                                    

                                                                        8                                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013