Appeal No. 1997-4222
Application 08/182,886
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note, since the inventive entities of
the instant application and the Milden patent are different,
that we assume, though we find no statement in the record
showing common ownership at the time of appellants’ invention,
that both the instant application and the Milden patent have a
common assignee, viz., Honeywell, Inc.
In accordance with MPEP guidelines, where there are
conflicting claims of different, but not patentably distinct,
inventions between an application and a patent, the examiner
is to make a rejection under both obviousness-type double
patenting and under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e)/103(a). In the
instant case, no rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 can be
made since the application filing date of January 18, 1994 is
(...continued)1
statutory section deals with same-invention type double patenting.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007