Ex parte DAVIS et al.Ex parte FRANCIS L. RICHTER, JAMES WILSON AND - Page 13




          Appeal No. 1999-1924                                      Page 13           
          Application No. 08/486,545                                                  


               While Appellant has presented claims of varying scope                  
               such as including the bias coil arm in the instant                     
               application, the actual improvement over the prior art                 
               centers around the inclined loading and unloading of the               
               disk hub onto the spindle magnet.  The other sub-                      
               components, such as the bias coil assembly, door links,                
               cartridge receiver latch, and parking arm, which are                   
               known in the art per se, have been reconfigured to                     
               cooperate with the cartridge loading mechanism and their               
               inclusion (in different permutations) in the claims of                 
               the five applications does not create patentably distinct              
               inventions.  Therefore, these claims drawn to a single                 
               disclosed embodiment of the invention are considered to                
               be mere obvious variant ways of claiming the same                      
               invention within the scope of the meaning of the                       
               judicially created doctrine of "obviousness-type" double               
               patenting. [Answer, p. 13].                                            
               [T]he inventions set forth in the claims of all five                   
               applications are all covering the same invention, are all              
               drawn to obvious variants of the same single                           
               disclosed embodiment, and are not independent and                      
               distinct from each other.  [Answer, p. 42].                            
                    It is the Examiner’s position that the claims of the              
               instant application, the claims of the three issued                    
               patents, and the claims of application 08/482,052 are not              
               independent and distinct. It is notable that throughout                
               the prosecution of the earliest filed application, no                  
               requirement for restriction was made, even though claims               
               drawn to the same scope as now found in the later four                 
               applications were present, because they were all drawn to              
               the same, single disclosed embodiment of the invention.                
               The public policy considerations underlying 35 U.S.C. 121              
               permit separate patents on "independent and distinct"                  
               inventions which are initially "claimed in one                         
               application."  [Answer, p. 48].                                        
                    If ABC and XYZ are independent and distinct                       
               inventions, Appellant can choose to only claim ABC in the              








Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007