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, 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013