REVERSED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
Ex Parte Ashmead et al 11/483,410 MILLS nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP.
Examiner Name: PRYOR, ALTON NATHANIEL
To determine if obviousness-type double patenting is present one must determine if any claim in the application at issue defines merely an obvious variation of an invention disclosed and claimed in the cited patents. In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441-42 (CCPA 1970). The disclosure of a reference patent may not be used as prior art; in certain situations, however, it may be used to define terms in claim and to determine whether an embodiment claimed was modified in an obvious manner. Carman Indus., Inc. v. Wahl, 724 F.2d 932, 940 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Obviousness-type double patenting entails a two-step analysis. First, the allegedly conflicting claims are construed and, second, the difference(s) between the claims are considered to determine whether the claims are patentably distinct. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim.” Id. Because nonstatutory double patenting compares earlier and later claims, an earlier patent’s disclosure is not available to show nonstatutory double patenting. See Gen. Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1281-82 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Vogel, In re, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970) . . . 804, 804.01, 804.02, 1504.06
Carman Indus. Inc. v. Wahl, 724 F.2d 932, 220 USPQ 481 (Fed. Cir. 1983) . . . . . . . . 804, 1504.06
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 58 USPQ2d 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . .804, 2144.08, 2165, 2165.01
General Foods Corp. v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 23 USPQ2d 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . .804
1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Ebner et al 10/322,896 TIMM 103(a) DANIEL B. RUBLE SEALED AIR CORPORATION
Examiner Name: PATTERSON, MARC A
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Messerges et al 10/306,494 KRIVAK 103(a) MOTOROLA, INC.
Examiner Name: DADA, BEEMNET W
Ex Parte Gray et al 10/221,364 JEFFERY 103(a) NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
Examiner Name: MADAMBA, GLENFORD J
Ex Parte Greer et al 09/788,628 JEFFERY 102(e)/103(a) SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC
Examiner Name: NGUYEN, THANH T
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Kobayashi et al 10/031,282 O’NEILL 103(a) WILLIAM S FROMMER FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG
Examiner Name: WILLIAMS, ROSS A
Ex Parte Burmeister et al 10/443,231 LEE 103(a) VIDAS, ARRETT & STEINKRAUS, P.A.
Examiner Name: PREBILIC, PAUL B
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Shoemaker et al 10/651,733 BLANKENSHIP 102(e) James P. BroderRoeder & Broder LLP
Examiner Name: THAI, HANH B
2400 Networking, Mulitplexing, Cable, and Security
Ex Parte Erickson et al 09/984,969 BLANKENSHIP 102(b) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Examiner Name: TANG, KAREN C
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Sato et al 10/523,708 BARRETT 103(a) THE GATES CORPORATION
Examiner Name: PILKINGTON, JAMES
See In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Appellants may show that the claimed invention has an unexpected property over the prior art “with evidence that the claimed invention exhibits some superior property or advantage that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would find surprising or unexpected.”).
Mayne, In re, 104 F.3d 1339, 41 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . .2144.09, 2145
REEXAMINATION
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2856
Ex parte R.A.Y. BUECHLER HOLDINGS (1995) LTD. Appellant 90/006,877 5,942,699 BOALICK 102(b)/103(a) FOR PATENT OWNER: DR. MARK M. FRIEDMAN FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT J. VASTA, JR.
Examiner Name: KAUFMAN, JOSEPH A
EXAMINER AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2606
Ex parte LECTROLARM CUSTOM SYSTEMS, INC. Appellant 90/007,400 4,974,088 BOALICK 102(b)/103(a) FOR APPELLANT: DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO, LLP FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER: DARBY & DARBY, P.C.
Examiner Name: POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R
NEW
REVERSED
Ex Parte Dahan et al
Ex Parte Ramanzin
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Emigh et al
Ex Parte Fischer et al
Ex Parte Hackbarth et al
Ex Parte Leiser et al
Ex Parte Lindsay et al
Ex Parte Merkin
Ex Parte Nelson
Ex Parte Paganessi et al
Ex Parte Sia et al
Ex Parte Sperling et al
Ex Parte Tanaami et al
