Appeal No. 1998-2623
Application No. 08/677,062
product-by-process claims 2 and 10. However, we determine,4
for reasons noted above, that the examiner has not established
that the cited prior art discloses a product that “appears to
be either identical with or only slightly different than [the]
product claimed in [the] product-by-process claim.” In re
Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980).
In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 3264
(CCPA 1974).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007