Appeal No. 96-3189
Application 08/396,079
application and November 30, 1994 in the '558 application, and
in which Appellants had never made any changes since their
allowance in the original application, on August 26, 1993, the
Examiner's position is consistent with the result contemplated
in Hull. As we explained above, since the fact situation in
this case is more akin to Hull, or even more egregious than
Hull, and very different from Moore and other cases cited
above, our conclusion is not inconsistent with that reached in
those cases on the issue of laches. We, therefore, affirm the
Examiner as to these claims . 2
However, as to claims 24 through 59, we reach a different
conclusion. These are new claims and were added, for the
first time, in the instant file-wrapper-continuation
application.
There has been no prior art rejection as to these claims
during the whole prosecution history, along the lines of
prosecution leading to the allowance of the original claims in
2Our decision is also consistent with the recent public
policy which has been translated into current patent law,
where, for a patent application filed on and after June 8,
1995, U.S. Patent term is good for twenty years from the date
of filing of the original application. 35 U.S.C. § 154.
-15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007