Ex parte KRUEGER et al. - Page 4




                Appeal No. 95-4633                                                                                                            
                Application 07/135,067                                                                                                        


                was being allowed.   We find these facts along with other facts set forth in our decision as showing a pattern                

                of activity in that appellants took voluntary actions which controlled the rate of prosecution of  K/D                        

                Applications I, II and III.                                                                                                   

                         Appellants point to portions (indicated in italics) of the following passages from pages 18 and 19                   

                of our decision contending that the prosecution of the K/M applications is not relevant to the issues on                      

                appeal:                                                                                                                       

                                 ... We find under this record that appellants had and maintained complete                                    
                         control over the prosecution of the applications in the line of cases which led to this                              
                         appeal and to the line of cases leading to the issuance of the Krueger I and Krueger                                 
                         II patents.                                                                                                          

                                                                 *     *     *                                                                

                                 ... Moreover, double patenting has been a continuing issue during the                                        
                         prosecution of [the] applications leading up to this application.  The examiner has                                  
                         maintained throughout the prosecution that the subject matter claimed in the Krueger-                                
                         Dyrud line of applications and the subject matter claimed in the Krueger-Meyer line of                               
                         applications leading to the Krueger I and Krueger II patents were conflicting.  In the first                         
                         two Krueger-Dyrud applications (K/D Applications I and II) leading to this application,                              
                         the examiner maintained that the subject matter claimed therein and the subject matter                               
                         claimed in the applications leading to the Krueger I and Krueger II patents was directed                             
                         to a “single inventive concept” such that they were  not patentably distinct from one                                
                         another.  In both applications, the examiner required applicants under 37 CFR § 1.78(c)                              
                         to determine priority of invention or to provide evidence that the applications were                                 
                         commonly owned.  Rather than petitioning the examiner’s requirement in K/D                                           
                         Application I, appellants chose to abandon the application and file KD Application                                   
                         II and to allow K/M Application I to issue as the Krueger I patent.                                                  

                The thrust of appellants’ argument is that the they properly and diligently prosecuted the K/D and K/M                        


                                                                     -4-                                                                      





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007