Appeal No. 00-0910
Application No. 08/821,176
include two independent claims: claim 1, directed to the
combination ABE , where the claim is readable on both E and3+4 3
E but not E or E ; and claim 10 , directed to ABE , where the3
4 1 2 3+4
claim is once again readable on both E and E but not E or E . 3 4 1 2
Upon side by side comparison of the claims of the present
application and the Scharboneau patent, it is clear to us that
the concerns voiced by the court in Schneller that led the
court to conclude that issuance of a second patent would lead
to an unjustified time wise extension of the right to exclude
do not exist here. This is so primarily because several ways
are disclosed in the Scharboneau patent for practicing the
invention thereof, but only one of said ways is specifically
claimed therein. Thus, upon expiration of the Scharboneau
patent, the public would be free to practice the invention of
the independent claims of the patent by using either E or E , 1 2
notwithstanding that appellants in the present application
might have the right to exclude others from making, using, or
3Claim 10 also calls for “a plastic cover integrally
molded to said steering wheel and over said airbag assembly,”
which limitation, for purposes of this appeal, we consider to
be irrelevant to the double patenting issues raised in this
appeal.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007