Appeal No. 96-3189
Application 08/396,079
laws and regulations. This responsibility encompasses the
inquiry by the PTO into the Appellants’ conduct, during patent
prosecution, to determine if it indeed is encompassed by or
within the so-called "arduous route" of arriving at claims
adequately covering the invention as in Moore, or falls
within the proscribed conduct discussed in Hull. We examine
the conduct of Appellants in more detail in the ensuing
discussion.
Appellants raise the issue whether Hull is applicable in
this case.
They argue that the Examiner's reliance on Hull is wrong,
and that Moore v. United States, 194 USPQ 423 (Ct. Cl. 1977)
should control, since Hull is a decision by the Board of
Appeals of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and Moore is
binding
precedent on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and,
hence, the Board of Appeals. Appellants further contend that,
in Hull, the applicant had admitted that he filed the chain of
continuation-in-part applications to prevent others from
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007