Appeal No. 1999-2131 Page 5
Application No. 08/971,504
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a result of our review, we make the
determinations that follow.
--The double patenting rejections--
The examiner's double patenting rejection of claims 1
through 74 is stated as two separate rejections. One
rejection is under the judicially-created doctrine of
"obviousness-type" double patenting, and the other "under the
judicially created doctrine of double patenting over claims 1-
27 of U.S. Patent No. 5,725,313, since the claims, if allowed,
would improperly extend the 'right to exclude' already granted
in the patent" (final rejection, page 3). This latter
rejection refers to In re Schneller,2 and it is not stated as
being under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e., "same invention" type).
All types of double patenting other than the "same invention"
type have come to be referred to as "obviousness-type" double
2 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007