Appeal No. 2002-0652
Application No. 08/465,072
term "product" without disclosing what the product is or how it
is made, this is error. Section 271(g) is an infringement
provision and has nothing to do with claiming.
Appellant argues (Brief, page 30) that the § 112, first
paragraph, rejections, regarding product terminology are in
conflict with the law of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
(CCPA) and, hence, the Federal Circuit, which states that an
invention can be claimed both as a "process" and a "product," so
it is clearly permitted to claim both the process and the further
act of making a product in response to the process or as a step
in the process.
This argument simply does not address the rejection. The
"making a product" claims do not recite that the product is what
is made by the process of the independent claim, but recite a
product made by an additional step, where there is no written
description of the "product" or the step of "making." Appellant
has not identified what he means by the product. Furthermore, it
is not just what appellant intends, but what the disclosure
objectively teaches one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant argues (Brief, pages 29-30) that products include
"machines" and "manufactures" and that clearly the disclosed
apparatuses constitute "machines" and "manufacture" and, hence,
products. It is also argued that the disclosed signals
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007