Appeal No. 2001-0096
Application 09/301,891
case of obviousness-type double patenting was properly made”. Id., 759 F. 2d at 896,
225 USPQ at 651.
Therefore, the Examiner’s reliance upon the specification of the Alston reference
is proper and this argument of Appellant is without merit.
Finally, Appellant makes multiple arguments (none supported with authority)
surrounding the PTO requirement for common ownership of patents which are subject
to terminal disclaimers, stating that it is “not judicially created and also is not fairly based
on statutory authority. The requirement is poorly considered, even if it is technically
authorized. The PTO should withdraw the requirement. It wastes time and money.
Restrictions on alienation are disfavored at law, in general” (Main Brief, page 6, lines 4 -
8).
The Appellant continues this line reasoning in the Reply Brief, stating “The PTO
should withdraw the requirement. It is a restraint on alienation. It is designed to protect
the infringer when the patent system is designed to promote the advance of science and
technology by rewarding inventors for a limited time for disclosing their inventions. The
current PTO policy conflicts with the Constitutional foundation for the patent system. It
wastes time and money. Restrains on alienation are disfavored at law, in general, and
have no place in patent law where a single claim may be transferred or licensed” (Reply
Brief, page 6, line 18 – page 7, line 2).
In response, the Examiner observed that one of the purposes of requiring a
terminal disclaimer is to ensure that the patents which issue on the same invention
which are not patentably distinct remain commonly owned and “avoid potential
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007