Appeal No. 1999-1447
Application No. 08/446,316
claims “is not present in any of the claims of the ‘131
patent” (Brief, page 22), and that these claims are
“independent and distinct” inventions (Brief, page 20).
Stated differently, we agree with the appellant that the
inclusion of the squelch signal (i.e., signal Y) in the method
and apparatus claims for reproducing information from a disc
produced an invention IJNUVWYZ that is patentably distinct
from the invention IJLMNOSZ and IJLMNOPQRSZ set forth in the
patent based upon the evidence of record. As a result of the
patentable distinctness between the application claims and the
patent
claims, the examiner could have made a restriction requirement
in the originally filed application.
DECISION
In summary, the obviousness rejections of claims 43 and
45 through 54 are reversed, and the judicially created
doctrine of double patenting rejection of claims 43 and 45
through 54 is reversed.
REVERSED
18
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007