transco, waldemar, lukach, gosteli, chester,

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1652 Ex Parte Zhang et al 10/340,288 MILLS 103(a) AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP EXAMINER SWOPE, SHERIDAN

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Nilsson et al 10/584,246 GARRIS 103(a) DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH (DC) EXAMINER YEE, DEBORAH

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Kaminkow 10/231,653 HORNER 101/103(a) K&L Gates LLP EXAMINER HOEL, MATTHEW D
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1644 Ex Parte Lahn et al 09/826,319 GRIMES 112(1)/103(a) SHERIDAN ROSS PC EXAMINER SCHWADRON, RONALD B
REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2875 Ex Parte 6719434 et al MOLE-RICHARDSON CO. Requestor, Appellant v. BRUCE L. FINN Patent Owner, Respondent 95/000,383 09/704,639 EASTHOM 103(a)/102(b) Fellers Snider Blankenship Baily & Tippens Third Party Requester: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP EXAMINER HUGHES, DEANDRA M original EXAMINER NEGRON, ISMAEL

“[T]he bottom line is that, no matter what term is used to describe a continuing application, that application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application only as to common subject matter.” Transco Products Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 556(Fed. Cir. 1994). “A CIP application can be entitled to different priority dates for different claims. Claims containing any matter introduced in the CIP are accorded the filing date of the CIP application. However, matter disclosed in the parent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent application.” Waldemar Link GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 558 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . .201.11, 2107.01, 2165.01

Waldemar Link, GmbH & Co. v. Osteonics Corp., 32 F.3d 556, 31 USPQ2d 1855 (Fed. Cir. 1994) . . . 706.03(o)
See Application of Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 969-70 (CCPA 1971) (later-filed broad range claim not supported by earlier grandparent disclosure of point in the range and anticipated by a similar disclosure in a related British patent); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (later-filed claims containing subject matter, a genus, not disclosed in foreign priority application, disclosing a subgenus of the genus claimed, not entitled to foreign priority); Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Lukach, holding that broader CIP claims in child were anticipated by the parent, which did not support the broader CIP claims).

Lukach, In re, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) . . . . . . . . .201.11, 2163, 2163.05

Gosteli, In re, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989) . . . . . . . . . 608.01(p), 715.03,
2131.02, 2136.05, 2163.02, 2163.03, 2163.05
AFFIRMED

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3682 Ex Parte Rizzi et al 09/876,173 FETTING 102(e) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. EXAMINER JANVIER, JEAN D