Appeal No. 1995-4535
Application No. 07/955,116
32. A security control laminate comprising a first tear
resistant film according to claim 1 having a first face and a
second face opposite the first face and a first layer of
adhesive of the first face of the tear resistant film.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Bland et al. (Bland’842) 5,427,842 June
27, 1995
Bland et al. (Bland’019) 5,604,019
February 18, 1997
Appealed claims 1-14, 16-19, 22, 24-30, and 57-61 stand
rejected “under the judicially created doctrine of double
patenting” over claims 1-40 of U. S. Patent No. 5,604,019
(Bland’019) “since the claims, if allowed, would improperly
extend ‘the right to exclude’ already granted in the patent”.
Appealed claims 32-46 stand rejected on the same basis over
claims 1-43 of U. S. Patent No. 5,427,842 (Bland’842).
We cannot sustain the stated rejections.
The examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims for
double patenting are based on alleged circumstances
essentially identical to those before the court in In re
Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968) wherein an
applicant later sought patent protection in a voluntary
divisional application for an invention (i.e., the best mode)
fully disclosed in and covered by broad claims in an earlier
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007