Appeal No. 96-2905
Application No. 29/008,076
dictum in a footnote of a Board decision in conflict with
authoritative rulings of binding precedent for more than a
century.
This is apparently in regard to our reference on page 20
of our decision to MPEP § 1504.04, and/or to the examiner's
reliance on In re Sussman, 8 USPQ2d 1443 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.
1988) in rejecting the claim. First, we did not rely on MPEP
§ 1504.04 in arriving at our decision. Second, we expressly
stated on page 20 of our decision that we did not rely on
Sussman in arriving at our conclusion that the standing
rejection is sustainable. Third, it is not clear what
"binding precedent" MPEP § 1504.04 or Sussman violate. 6
Fifth, we simply disagree with the appellant's argument
that our decision, if correct, renders thousands of unexpired
design and utility patents having the word "substantially" in
the claim invalid. Our decision makes no such sweeping
holding. Rather, our decision stands for the proposition that
6MPEP § 1504.04 has been revised to delete the reference
to Sussman.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007