Interference No. 103,036
of any of the above named [three] applica-
tions. Therefore, a terminal Disclaimer
filed in the instant application would be
moot or otherwise unnecessary[,] as an
extension of monopoly is not possible. [CR
1667]
On page 3 [CR 1668] of its motion, the party Cataldi et al.
contends that the examiner was “simply wrong." The party Cataldi
et al. contends that terminal disclaimers accomplish two results.
They prevent a timewise extension of the patent property right
and “also avoid the possibility that, if two patents come into
different hands, third parties may be sued by both assignees for
the same activities." According to the party Cataldi et al., the
latter situation is not avoided in this case by the filing of
terminal disclaimers in the three later filed applications.
Rather, the examiner should have required the filing of a
reciprocal terminal disclaimer in the party Burroughs et al.'s
reissue application. This position is not well taken.
In response to a rejection of its reissue claims on the
ground of obviousness-type double patenting, the party Burroughs
et al. filed in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.321 terminal
disclaimers in each of its three later filed applications. The
examiner properly accepted the disclaimers and withdrew the
rejection. We know of no authority for requiring the party
-64-
Page: Previous 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007