Appeal No. 96-3189
Application 08/396,079
not necessarily the same as the publication of the invention
in the form of a U.S. Patent, the disclosure requirements of
which are specifically designed by the U.S. Patent Laws to
appropriately disclose the invention to the U.S. public. On
the second point, we agree with the Examiner. Since, in the
case of the instant application having a filing date preceding
June 8, 1995, the patent term does not begin until a U.S.
Patent has been granted, regardless of the Japanese
publication, the point in time at which the invention is
dedicated to the pubic at the expiration of the U.S. Patent is
extended. With respect to the third point, we also agree with
the Examiner that whereas it is permissive to file one or more
continuations under 35 U.S.C. § 120, we find that it is not
proper to file repetitive continuations, with the same claims
without any amendments, when all the pending claims in the
successive parent applications had been allowed. That conduct
is against the public policy of disclosing an invention to the
public as early as possible [footnote no. 9 in Moore]. On the
final point, since the PTO is responsible to administer the
process of obtaining a U.S. Patent, it is incumbent upon the
PTO to assure adherence of a patent applicant to the patent
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007