Ex parte STRETCH - Page 5




                 Appeal No. 97-3085                                                                                                                     
                 Application 08/236,835                                                                                                                 


                          described within the disclosure and encompassed                                                                               
                          within the scope of the claim(s) of Applicant’s                                                                               
                          copending application Serial No. 08/236,809,                                                                                  
                          copending application Serial No. 08/236,069, and                                                                              
                          copending application Serial No. 08/236,838 and                                                                               
                          therefore, a claim for the now claimed subject                                                                                
                          matter could have been presented therein.                                                                                     
                                   The non-statutory type double patenting                                                                              
                          rejection is a judicially established doctrine based                                                                          
                          upon public policy and is primarily intended to                                                                               
                          prevent unjustified prolongation of the patent term.                                                                          
                          See In re Schneller, 397 f.2nd 350, 158 USPQ 210                                                                              
                          (CCPA 1968) [answer, Paper No. 22, page 3].                                                                                   
                          Reference is made to the appellant’s brief and to the                                                                         
                 examiner’s answer for the respective positions of the                                                                                  
                 appellant                                                                                                                              




                 and the examiner with regard to the merits of this rejection.6                                                                         
                          In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968),                                                                      

                 USPQ2d 1771 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1988)) and by the                                                                                    
                 predecessor of our reviewing court (see, for example, In re                                                                            
                 Wetterau, 356 F.2d 556, 148 USPQ 499 (CCPA 1966)).  As                                                                                 
                 indicated above, Application 08/236,069 has matured into U.S.                                                                          
                 Patent No. 5,577,963.                                                                                                                  
                          6The final rejection also included 35 U.S.C. § 112,                                                                           
                 second paragraph, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103                                                                               
                 rejections which have since been withdrawn by the examiner                                                                             
                 (see the advisory action dated June 6, 1996, Paper No. 16, and                                                                         
                 page 4 in the answer).                                                                                                                 
                                                                         -5-                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007