Appeal No. 1997-1001 Application No. 08/369,202 Although the processing aspects of the appealed product-by- process claims require the separate and sequential addition of urea and melamine to the resole resin solution, the appealed claims are nevertheless directed to a product, i.e., an aqueous binder solution. Thus, the determination of the patentability of the appealed claims must be based on the product itself, not the process of making it. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(“If 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 art product was made by a different process.”) From a structural perspective, it reasonably appears that the aqueous binder solution defined by the herein product-by-process claims is the same as or only slightly different from the suggested prior art ammonia, urea, melamine modified resin binder solution of Coventry. We have not ignored appellants’ arguments which stress that appellants’ intention is to produce a “prereact binder with greater binding efficiency.” See the reply brief at page 2. However, appellants’ claims are directed to an aqueous 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007