Ex Parte Yoder et al - Page 6



              Appeal No. 2004-0647                                                                Page 6                
              Application No. 09/941,965                                                                                
              weights of any of the acid hydrolyzed samples, nor do we see anything to indicate that                    
              any of the acid hydrolyzed samples were centrifuged and decanted after they were                          
              neutralized.                                                                                              
                     Nevertheless, it is well settled that “[t]he patentability of a product does not                   
              depend on its method of production[;]” “[i]f the product . . . is the same as   . . . a                   
              product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was                     
              made by a different process.”  In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966                         
              (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).  Moreover, while “the Patent Office has the initial                 
              burden of coming forward with some sort of evidence tending to disprove novelty” In re                    
              Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ2d 545, 548 (CCPA 1970), an exception has                              
              been recognized where a reference does not address every element of a claimed                             
              product, but the evidence available to the examiner is consistent with a finding that “the                
              claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by               
              identical or substantially identical processes.”  In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195                    
              USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).  In that case (id.)                                                         
                     the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do                           
                     not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed                           
                     product . . . . Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35                             
                     U.S.C. § 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly                          
                     or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is                             
                     evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and                          
                     compare prior art products [footnote omitted].                                                     
                     Here, there is nothing to indicate that any of Hatta’s acid hydrolyzed samples                     
              were centrifuged and decanted after they were neutralized, so it is reasonable to                         
              conclude that Hatta’s acid hydrolyzed samples and the claimed composition were not                        
              “produced by identical or substantially identical processes” (id.).  Nor has the examiner                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007