Appeal No. 96-1122
Application 08/087,134
Claims 2, 3, 11, 22 and 23 are rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over, respectively, claims 2, 3, 24, 16, and 17 of
U.S. Patent 5,130,603 to Tokailin et al. (Tokailin).
Tokailin claims electroluminescence devices comprising
light emitting materials which comprise specified compounds.
The compounds in appellants’ claims 2, 3, 11, 22 and 23 are
recited, respectively, in Tokailin’s claims 2 (where Ar’ is
biphenylene), 3, 24, 16, and 17. Hence, appellants’ claimed
compounds are unpatentable under the doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting over the respective claims of Tokailin.
See In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441-42, 164 USPQ 619, 621-22
(CCPA 1970).
In the application which issued as the Tokailin patent,
i.e., Application 07/490,337, a restriction requirement was
made (paper no. 5) between a first group of claims directed
toward luminescent compounds and electroluminescence devices
thereof, and a second group directed toward a process for
making the luminescent compounds. Appellants elected the
first group and did not traverse the restriction requirement
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007