Appeal No. 1995-4535
Application No. 07/955,116
issued patent. Since there was no reason preventing the
applicant from presenting the claims to the best mode for
examination in the application of the issued patent (and no
terminal disclaimer had been filed), the Schneller court held
that the rule against “double patenting” must be applied to
avoid the “timewise extention of the protection afforded” by
Schneller’s earlier patent.
With regard to the claims issued in Bland’019 and
Bland’842 which are directed to a tear resistant film and a
security control laminate comprised of a tear resistant film
respectively, the examiner points out that such patented
claims define the ductile layer component of the tear
resistant film broadly, although each patent allegedly
discloses that such ductile layer may be composed of a ductile
copolyester comprising a sebacic acid component, while the
appealed claims require a ductile layer component of a tear
resistant film as “a ductile sebacic acid based copolyester
that (i) comprises at least 1 mole equivalent of sebacic acid,
based on 100 mole equivalents of acid components.” Thus, the
examiner argues that like the situation in Schneller, the
subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007