Appeal No. 1996-2874
Application No. 08/027,849
prior art. See Brief, pages 6 and 7. In support of his
position, appellant refers to Sax, Wiley, Bartl, McCaffery,
Odian and March to demonstrate that thermal and photo
polymerizations are different processes. Id. We are not
persuaded by either appellant’s argument or evidence. The
patentability of a product, such as a tubular body, does not
depend on ways in which it is made. When a product is
claimed, the claimed product itself must be patentably
different from those of the prior art.
Appellant also argues that the claimed product-by-process
limitation renders the claimed tubular body patentably
different from those of the prior art since it limits the
claimed reaction resin compositions to those which can be
cured by exposure to light and at a temperature between 20 Co
to 60 C. See, e.g., Reply Brief, page 5. However, appellanto
has not demonstrated that the prior art reaction resin
compositions cannot be cured by exposure to light (e.g.,
ionization radiation or UV radiation) at a temperature as high
as 60 C. In re Thorp, supra; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210,o
212, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971). In other words, appellant
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007