Appeal No. 2006-0103 Page 11
Application No. 10/172,892
We agree that the disclosed method meets all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and
17. Schermer does not describe the gasket shown in Figures 2 and 3A as a “form-in-
place gasket” but, as previously discussed, a product-by-process limitation does not
distinguish a claimed product from an identical product made by a different process. See
In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Appellants’ arguments with respect to Schermer are identical to their arguments
with respect to Chen. We find them no more persuasive the second time around. We
affirm the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 17 as anticipated by Schermer. Claims 2-6, 9,
and 13-16 fall with claim 1.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Demetra J. Mills )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Lora Green )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EG/jlb
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007