Appeal No. 1998-2941 Page 19
Application No. 08/061,985
Reexamination Control No. 90/003,682
applications have any significant precedential value. In
evaluating compliance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, each
application must be evaluated on the record developed in the
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). See In re Gyurik, 596 F.
2d 1012, 1018 n.15, 201 USPQ 552, 558 n.15 (CCPA 1979) and In
re Phillips, 315 F. 2d 943, 137 USPQ 369 (CCPA 1963). To the
extent any error has been made in the rejection or issuance of
claims in a particular application, the PTO and its examiners
are not bound to repeat that error in subsequent applications.
Accord, In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845,
1849 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("The fact that the PTO may have failed
to adhere to a statutory mandate over an extended period of
time does not justify its continuing to do so."); In re
Cooper, 254 F.2d 611, 617, 117 USPQ 396, 401 (CCPA), cert.
denied, 358 U.S. 840, 119 USPQ 501 (1958) (decision in a
trademark application in accordance with law is not governed
by possibly erroneous past decisions of the Patent Office); In
re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261, 267, 204 USPQ 988, 995 (CCPA 1980)
("[W]e are not saying the issuance of one patent is a
precedent of much moment.").
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007