Appeal No. 2005-0866
Application No. 09/971,739
find that Wohl describes within the meaning of § 102 an item with
a decorative void comprising a quantity of a composition which
defines the void. The claim recitation "decorative void created
by the removal of an at-least-partially-embedded object from said
first quantity of composition" is process language that does not
further define the claimed item. In any event, Wohl forms the
outer shell by removing an inner mold. Although appellant's
process of forming the item with a decorative void is different
than the process disclosed by Wohl, the difference is not
reflected in the scope of claim 15 on appeal. Furthermore, even
if product-by-process claim 15 recited a process that was clearly
distinct from the process disclosed by Wohl, appellant has not
demonstrated that the resultant product is substantially
different than the outer shell formed by Wohl.
Since we find that the subject matter of claims 1-20 would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the
disclosure of Wohl, alone, it follows that we also find that
separately rejected claims 16, 18 and 19 would have been obvious
over the combination of Wohl and Morrison.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007