Appeal No. 98-2456
Application No. 08/748,158
molded device [product] and one that is injection molded [in a
mold] without a slide" and, if so, has required appellant to
state what they are.
While it is not entirely clear to us exactly what
structural limitations or physical characteristics might be
imparted to the plastic handle of appellant's razor as a
result of being "formed as a single piece in a plastic
injection mold" (claim 23) or "formed as a single piece in a
plastic injection mold without a slide" (claims 10 and 24), we
nonetheless find the examiner's requirement here to be
unreasonable. As is apparent from the above-noted case law,
appellant is normally only put to the burden of specifying the
exact structural limitations imposed on the claimed product by
the process limitations when the examiner has applied prior
art which teaches, discloses or makes obvious a product which
reasonably appears to be either identical with or only
slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-
process claim. This the examiner has not done in the present
application, since no prior art has been applied by the
examiner. Accordingly, we do not see that appellant should be
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007