Ex parte GRANDE et al. - Page 6




                Appeal No. 1997-1801                                                                                                           
                Application 08/351,162                                                                                                         


                         In the examiner’s view the prior art multicolor toners appear to be no different than the toners                      
                made by applicants’ process.  We agree.                                                                                        


                                                                      C.                                                                       
                         Applicants’ brief does not challenge that one skilled in the art would conclude that the multicolor                   
                toners described by Tomanek, Nakano and Anderson are the same as the toners claimed by applicants.6                            
                Rather, applicants argue (1) that references do not anticipate because they do not teach the specific process                  
                steps required by the claims and (2) that declaration evidence shows that the powdered color toners of the                     
                claims are different than the powdered color toners taught in the prior art.                                                   
                                                                      1.                                                                       
                         Applicants’ first argument is clearly inconsistent with the well established precedent that the                       
                patentability of product-by-process claims is based upon the product not on the process steps used to                          
                make that product.  E.g., Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966.  In support of their argument,                             
                applicants rely on Scripps, 927 F.2d at 1576, 18 USPQ2d at 1010 and In re Marshall, 578 F.2d 301, 198                          
                USPQ 344 (CCPA 1978).  Brief, pp. 4-9.  Both cases are easily distinguished.  The portion of the Scripps                       
                opinion to which applicants direct our attention states:                                                                       
                                 Invalidity for anticipation requires that all of the elements and limitations of the                          
                                 claim are found within a single prior art reference.  There must be no difference                             
                                 between the claimed invention and the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person                             
                                 of ordinary skill in the field of the invention.                                                              
                                          It is sometimes appropriate to consider extrinsic evidence to explain the                            
                                 disclosure of a reference.  Such factual elaboration is necessarily of limited scope                          


                         6                                                                                                                     
                                 Section 1.192(a) provides in relevant part:                                                                   
                                 Appellant must . . .file a brief in triplicate. The brief . . . must set forth the authorities and            
                                 arguments on which appellant will rely to maintain the appeal. Any arguments or                               
                                 authorities not included in the brief will be refused consideration by the Board of Patent                    
                                 Appeals and Interferences, unless good cause is shown.                                                        
                                                                      6                                                                        





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007