Whether or not the covers start off "complete" is immaterial; all that matters for an apparatus claim is the end product. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d at 785; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697. 2.

Whether the covers start off "complete" or not is immaterial; all that matters for an apparatus claims is the end product. See In re Bell, 991 F.2d at 785; In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697. B. In None of the Accused Dallas Manufacturing Beds Is "Substantially All" of the Bolster Disposed "Exteriorly" About the Perimeter of the Bottom Cushion Each of the accused Dallas Manufacturing beds has its bolster disposed on or over the top of the bottom cushion, not "exteriorly about at least a portion of the perimeter" of the bottom cushion.

Prior art anticipates a claimed product if the prior art reference discloses it, even if the product is made by a process different than that claimed. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (patent claim rejected for composition used in carbonless copy paper systems that were known in prior art but made by different process). The process may be patentable if it is truly new, but, as discussed supra, the PTO’s conclusion that Voisin’s high-pressure process is not novel has been upheld.

Prior art anticipates a claimed product if the prior art reference discloses it, even if the product is made by a process different than that claimed. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (patent claim rejected for composition used in carbonless copy paper systems that were known in prior art but made by different process). The process may be patentable if it is truly new, but, as discussed supra, the PTO’s conclusion that Voisin’s high-pressure process is not novel has been upheld.

In other words, if a prior art reference discloses the claimed product, even if it is made by a process different than that claimed, the prior art nevertheless anticipates the claimed product. This was precisely the case in In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985). There, the Case 1:06-cv-00825-JR Document 28 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 23 of 33 3 If the process for making the product is truly new, the process itself may be patentable. Smithkline, 439 F.3d at 1319.