Appeal No. 95-5076
Application 08/079,220
Upon consideration of the record in this application, we reverse the obviousness-
type double patenting rejection based upon the claims of Won N825. See In re Kaplan, 789
F.2d 1574, 1577, 229 USPQ 678, 681 (Fed. Cir. 1986)(domination, by itself, does not rise
to “double patenting”).
Other Issues
1. Effective filing date of claims
The examiner has not determined whether the claims on appeal are entitled to the
benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120. As seen from footnote 1 above,
many of the parent applications are stated to be continuation-in-part applications. Upon
return of the application, the examiner should determine the effective filing date of the
claims and ensure that the prior art has been properly evaluated based upon that
determined date.
2. Won N825
Neither appellants nor the examiner have recognized during the prosecution and
examination of this application that Won ‘825 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Won
‘825 is an United States patent filed on October 4, 1985, i.e., prior to the earliest effective
filing date that the claims on appeal may be entitled to under 35 U.S.C. § 120. Why the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007