Appeal No. 97-2502
Application 08/358,353
Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.
1985)(“[i]f 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”). Here, we find no difference between the
compositions described in claims 30 and 31. Accordingly, for the
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 31, we hold that
the product of claim 30 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed in part.
No time period for taking subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
)
WILLIAM F. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOAN ELLIS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007