Appeal No. 95-1484
Application 08/070,650
if it is merely routine, or if the specification in
question provides a reasonable amount of guidance
with
respect to the direction in which the
experimentation
should proceed to enable the determination of how to
practice a desired embodiment of the invention
claimed.
Ex parte Jackson, 217 USPQ 804, 807 ([Bd. Pat. App. &
Int.]
1982).
2. Obviousness-type double patenting
Claims 67 and 68 stand rejected for obviousness-type
double patenting of Claims 1-10 of Johnson, U.S. 4,863,565.
We affirm this rejection.
As stated in In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d
2010, 2015 (Fed. Cir. 1993):
To prevent extension of the patent right beyond
statutory limits, the doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting rejects application claims to subject matter
different but not patentably distinct from the subject
matter claimed in a prior patent. In re Braat, 937 F.2d
589, 592, 19 USPQ2d 1289, 1291-92 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In this case, as in Goodman, 11 F.3d at 1053, 29 USPQ2d at
2016, the patented claims are drawn to species of the
patentably indistinct generic invention of the claims here on
appeal. While the patented claims are directed to a wet laid
sheet of cellulose and Claims 67 and 68 are directed to
reticulated cellulose, the cellulosic composition, reticulated
- 18 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007