Appeal No. 98-2069
Application No. 29/052,369
have issued with the word "substantially" appearing in the
claim. However, the appellant has not cited any authority
which holds that the issuance of a patent has any significant
precedential value. In evaluating compliance with 35 U.S.C.
§§ 112 and 171, each design 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 has 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 past decisions of
the Patent Office); In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 267, 204 USPQ
988, 995 (CCPA 1980) ("[W]e are not saying the issuance of one
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007