Appeal No. 1997-0566
Application No. 08/344,345
claims contain nothing which even distinguishes over the
method of Sekar. It is here appropriate to emphasize that the
appellants' arguments concerning these claims are simply not
relevant to the features recited therein. For example, the
argued distinctions presented regarding independent claim 13
do not relate to the features thereof but instead are directed
to the strip form adhesive substance feature of appealed claim
1. Similarly, the argued distinction presented concerning
independent claim 16 relates not to the features thereof but
instead to the envelope form adhesive substance feature of
appealed claim 7.
The examiner's Section 103 rejection of product claims 19
through 22 will also be sustained. It is well settled, of
course, that the patentability determination of such product-
by-process claims is based upon the product itself rather than
upon the process by which it is made. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d
695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). With this in
mind, we fail to discern any distinction between the paint
roller product of appealed claims 19 through 22 and the paint
roller product of Sekar. More specifically, while the
products of appealed claims 19 and 20 are made by methods
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007