Appeal No. 2005-0620
Application 10/010,202
Actually, the Federal Circuit was citing, in a long discussion of
prior product-by-process cases, a 1941 CCPA case, In re Moeller,
117 F.2d 565, 568, 48 USPQ 542, 545 (CCPA 1941), wherein the CCPA
stated: “We think the rule is well established ....” The court
in Atlantic Thermoplastics stated that
accommodating the demands of the administrative process
and recognizing the capabilities of the trial courts,
this court treats claims differently for patentability
as opposed to validity and infringement. The PTO’s
treatment of product-by-process claims as a product
claim for patentability is consistent with policies
giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.
The same rule, however, does not apply in validity and
infringement litigation.
Atlantic Thermoplastics, 970 F.2d at 846, 23 USPQ2d at 1491.
We therefore find that the transfer sheet claimed in the
appellants’ claim 1 is anticipated by Franke. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of that claim and claims 2, 4-6 and 8-10
that stand or fall therewith.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Franke is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007