Appeal No. 2004-2271
Application No. 09/731,650
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to independent claim 11, Appellants argue at
page 5 of the brief, “this paragraph [0090 of Block] teaches a
web site and pages within the website, and is silent as to any
sort of client-executable script, and specifically is silent as
to transmitting to the client device a script to produce a table
as we have claimed.” We find this argument unpersuasive.
Claim 11 recites that “said quantity of rows of input fields
being determined by a script received via said network
interface.” This section of claim 11 is a process limitation on
the product (a quantity of rows of input fields) being claimed.
It is well established that product-by-process claims are not
limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the
structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-
process claims are limited by and defined by the process,
determination of patentability is based on the product itself.
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of
production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is
the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim
is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007