Interference No. 104,192
Cragg v. Martin v. Fogarty
Bihlmaier, supra where compliance was found because
the material limitation was substantially claimed
albeit in different language, (iii) Connin v.
Andrews, 223 USPQ 243 (Bd. Pat. Int’f. 1984) where
the limitation, while material and undisclosed, was
inherent, and (iv) Pizzurro v. Pfund, 1 USPQ2d 1056
(Bd. Pat. Int’f. 1984) where a limitation was
material and claimed.
In our view, none of the authorities Fogarty cites sets
forth the principle that so long as every material limitation
of a patent claim is included in an applicant’s claim, then
the applicant has claimed substantially the same invention as
the patent claim regardless of whether the applicant’s claim
includes additional features which may render the applicant’s
claim patentably distinct or separately patentable from the
patent claim.
Except for In re Tanke, 213 F.2d 551, 102 USPQ 83 (CCPA
1954), Stalego v. Heymes, 263 F.2d 334, 120 USPQ 473 (CCPA
1959), Wetmore v. Miller, 477 F.2d 960, 177 USPQ 699 (CCPA
1973), and Corbett v. Chisholm, 568 F.2d 759, 196 USPQ 337
(CCPA 1977), none of the other cases cited by Fogarty for 7
7Not Rieser v. Williams, 255 F.2d 419, 118 USPQ 96 (CCPA
1958); not In re Schutte, 244 F.2d 323, 113 USPQ 537 (CCPA
1981); not Ex parte Bowen, 80 USPQ 106 (Bd. App. 1947); not
Olin v. Duerr, 175 USPQ 707 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1972); not Connin
v. Andrews, 223 USPQ 243 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1984); not Pizzurro v.
Pfund, 1 USPQ2d 1056 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1984); not Bowen v.
Bihlmaier, 231 USPQ 662 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1986).
- 43 -
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007