Appeal No. 97-2642 Page 14
Application No. 08/094,461
through 32 , however, the appellant has not cited any4
authority which holds that the issuance of a patent has any
significant precedential value. In evaluating patentability
under 35 U.S.C., each application must be evaluated on the
record developed in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
See In re Gyurik, 596 F. 2d 1012, 1018 n.15, 201 USPQ 552, 558
n.15 (CCPA 1979) and In re Phillips, 315 F. 2d 943, 137 USPQ
369 (CCPA 1963). To the extent any error may have been made
in the rejection or issuance of claims in a particular
application, the PTO and its examiners are not bound to repeat
that error in subsequent applications. Accord, In re
Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1849 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) ("The fact that the PTO may have failed to adhere
to a statutory mandate over an extended period of time does
not justify its continuing to do so."); In re Cooper, 254 F.2d
611, 617, 117 USPQ 396, 401 (CCPA), cert. denied, 358 U.S.
840, 119 USPQ 501 (1958) (decision in a trademark application
in accordance with law is not governed by possibly erroneous
4Appealed claims 20 through 25 and 30 through 32 were
copied from U.S. Patent No. 5,308,190 for purposes of having
an interference declared (37 CFR § 1.607).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007