Appeal No. 1999-1924 Page 14
Application No. 08/486,545
earlier application and only claim XYZ in a later,
voluntarily filed divisional application and the question
of obviousness-type double patenting would not apply.
The real issues are whether the applicant disclosed a
single invention or independent and distinct inventions,
and whether the inventor of a single invention should be
able, through “artful” claim drafting, to obtain an
additional patent term or terms on a single invention.
In the instant case, the claims of the issued patents and
the copending applications were present in the parent
application 08/296,794 (U.S. Patent 5,724,331) and no
restriction requirement was made, because the claims were
drawn to a single disclosed embodiment of the invention.
[Answer, p. 50].
Attached to this decision in Appendix A is a side-by-side
analysis of the claims of the instant application and U.S.
Patent Nos. 5,684,776; 5,703,857; 5,724,331 and copending
application 08/482,052. In this analysis, only the
limitations in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,684,776; 5,703,857;
5,724,331 and copending application 08/482,052 that are not
present in the instant application are bold print highlighted.
Our review of the claims under appeal and claim 1 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,684,776; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,703,857;
claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,724,331; and claim 1 of copending
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007