Appeal No. 97-3669
Application 08/391,745
the product is made and thus is inconsequential in a product-by-
process claim wherein patentability must be based on
structural features of the product. Here, the end product is one
in which selected portions of the electrode material have been
removed from the surface of the substrate, the same as that
disclosed in Aoyama. While the appellants have argued that a
product made by the appellants’ process would be more beneficial
because it would have extremely sharp edges, such assertions of
extreme or improved sharpness are not supported by any objective
evidence such as specific test data or declaration evidence.
Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782, 193 USPQ 17, 22 (CCPA
1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 854, 195 USPQ 465 (1977).
The appellants have grouped claims 24 and 25 with claim 28
(Brief, at 5). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims
24, 25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Aoyama.
The Obviousness Rejections
Claims 6, 13, 14, and 26 have been rejected as being
unpatentable over the combination of Aoyama and Kleiman. Claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007