Appeal No. 2001-0096
Application 09/301,891
harassment of an accused infringer by multiple parties with patents covering the same
patentable invention”, citing 1202 OG 112, 37 C.F.R. § 1.601(n), and In re Van Ornum
and Stang, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) (Examiner’s Answer, page 10,
lines 11-13).
The Examiner is correct. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, patent claims may
not be singly transferred. Separate claims of the same patent may not be assigned to
different parties See Pope Manufacturing Co. v. Gormully & Jeffery Manufacturing Co.,
144 U.S. 248 (1892), the Appellant’s objections to the restraint on alienation
notwithstanding.
Substantive Discussion
We now turn to the merits of the obviousness-type double patenting rejection as
applied to the pending claims.
The Examiner notes that the Pannell claims recite an article of manufacture
which include Z-pin reinforcement between two composite layers for fiber reinforced
resin impregnated material. The claims also recite two fiber reinforced composite
elements that are arranged to define a bond line with a cured strip of resin at the bond
line where the cured strip included Z-pin reinforcement.
The Examiner admits that the claims of Pannell failed to teach the inclusion of X
and Y reinforcement in the composite elements being joined and the specific areal
density of the pins in the finished composite joint.
Appellant has not addressed the Examiner’s discussion of the Pannell claims
substantively.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007