Appeal No. 2005-1698 2
Application No.09/775,425
The request alleges that our earlier decision mischaracterized appellants' claims
as product-by-process claims and ignored structural limitations of the claims.
Appellants argue on page 4 of the request that claim 1 is clearly an apparatus claim that
recites the structure of the device and this panel agrees. As pointed out in our earlier
decision, the patentability of a product (or apparatus) claim depends on the structure
recited therein, not on the method by which it was produced.
Appellants argued in their brief, and continue to argue in their request, that the
limitation of claims 1 and 15, that said peripheral lip of said overlay cannot extend
radially beyond said outermost edge of said flange lip of said wheel regardless of
tolerance variations of said overlay and said wheel, is not disclosed by any of the
applied references. Our earlier decision explained on pages 5-6 and 8-9 where each of
Todd, Beam, Chase and Murray discloses such limitation and appellants have not
pointed to any other limitation in any of the claims which is not met by the applied
references. Accordingly, appellants' request fails to persuade us of any error in our
earlier decision affirming the examiner's rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007