Appeal No. 2005-2678
Application 09/992,110
Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966; In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 271, 191 USPQ
90, 103-04 (CCPA 1976) (“These claims are cast in product-by-process form. Although
appellants argue, successfully we have found, that the [reference] disclosure does not suggest . . .
appellants’ process, the patentability of the products defined by the claims, rather than the
processes for making them, is what we must gauge in light of the prior art.”).
We suggest that the examiner consider whether the “at least one irregular distortion
generated by hydraulic fracture of the thread element to separate it from a bonded fibrous
material” required of the products claimed in the above claims, as illustrated in specification
FIGs. 3 through 8 and 10 through 14, would reasonably appear to occur in the recycled synthetic
fibers and fiber-like materials obtained from the mechanical shredding method of Milding, and
the nonwoven materials prepared therewith as taught by the reference.
Accordingly, the examiner is required to take appropriate action consistent with current
examining practice and procedure to consider the issue we raise above with respect to appealed
claims 16 through 27, supplying and applying any other applicable prior art in this ground as the
examiner deems appropriate.
We hereby remand this application to the examiner, via the Office of a Director of the
Technology Center, for appropriate action in view of the above comments.
This application, by virtue of its “special” status, requires immediate action. See MPEP
§ 708.01(D) (8th ed., Rev. 2, May 2004; 700-127). It is important that the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences be informed promptly of any action affecting the appeal in this case.
See, e.g., MPEP§ 1211 (8th ed., Rev. 2, May 2004; 1200-30).
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007