Appeal No. 2001-0199
Application 09/179,813
obviousness, the Appellants have essentially provided no argument as to why the
claims are not anticipated.
We note that these claims are written in product-by-process format, and as such
are anticipated by a disclosure which is the same as a product made by the recited
process, no matter how the reference product was made. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,
697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The Examiner has correctly observed that the product produced by the
Appellants’ process as claimed in claim 20 is identical to a product as outlined by
Breitler. Breitler yields a cold formed shaped packaging made of a metal-plastic
laminate (Examples 1-6 illustrate metal-plastic laminates, see column 8, lines 6 – 56)
having a packaging recess (the materials of Examples 1-6 are stretch drawn over a
hemispherical sphere of radius 13.5 mm in Example 7, column 8, lines 60-67). The
Examiner found this material to be free of folds, and the Appellants did not challenge
this finding. Thus, we agree that each of the claimed elements of the product formed by
the Appellants’ process is found in Breitler, and we affirm the anticipation rejection for
claim 20, 22-26, and 28-29.
The Appellants have argued claim 21 separately, stating that this claim “lists
numerous specific asymmetric laminates” (Appeal Brief, page 9, lines 18-19). While
claim 21 does list some asymmetric laminates, it also lists oPA 25 / AL 45/ oPA 25, a
symmetric laminate which is directly anticipated by Breitler’s Example 1, at column 8,
lines 5-21. The anticipation rejection of claim 21 is therefore also affirmed.
The Rejection of Claims 20-29 Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) Over Breitler
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007