Appeal 2007-0554
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,118 & 90/006,254
Patent 6,196,681 B1
sequentially shot in first and second mold cavities. As such, the rigid plastic
and soft plastic which comprise the front frame are bonded at the molecular
level to provide ultimate assurance against separation of the two materials
during use” (Conway, p. 2, first full para.). Conway’s “inventive method
may be used . . . to form a single brow bar to which single or paired lenses
are mounted” (Conway, p. 7, ll. 6-8). In fact, we find that Conway
reasonably appears to describe every physical and chemical limitation of the
unitary structure defined by Appellant’s Claim 1 (See Conway, pp. 2-3,
Summary of the Invention). In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ
964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985):
[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined
by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product
itself. . . . .
The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of
production. . . . If the product in a product-by-process claim is the
same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is
unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different
process.
No limitation of the process of making the claimed “unitary structure”
as defined in Appellant’s Claim 1 or Specification undermines our finding
that every physical and chemical limitation of the product Appellant claims
is described by Conway. Accordingly, we find that the unitary structure
defined by Applicant’s Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Conway alone. Therefore, we also conclude that the unitary
structure defined by Applicant’s Claim 1 is unpatentable for obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Conway’s disclosure. See In re Pearson,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013