Appeal No. 2004-0203
Application No. 09/780,320
No. 19, of our Decision dated Feb. 19, 2004, Paper No. 18,
affirming the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Hyams (Decision, Paper No. 18, page 2).
Appellants request rehearing based on two issues. First,
appellants request reconsideration of the following statement at
page 5 of the Decision (Request, page 2):
However, the claim on appeal as construed above is
directed to a finished product while the intermediate
process limitations have not been shown by appellants
to change or differentiate the claimed product from the
finished product of Hyams.
Appellants argue that the “observation” that the unfolded edges
of the product claim are not differentiated from the folded edges
of Hyams is not accurate, and is a significant difference since
the latter produces “bulk” which is a source of discomfort, and
the former does not (Id.).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. We note that the
“observation” quoted from page 5 of the Decision is based on our
claim construction, including consideration of the product-by-
process format of the claim, which construction appellants have
not contested. Contrary to their argument, appellants have not
established that Hyams is directed to the “conventional” folded
edges of the acknowledged prior art (as shown in appellants’
Figure 2). The evidence of record shows that Hyams discloses
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007