Appeal No. 1997-3047
Application 08/480,152
The court in Stanley stated:
We are of the opinion that the generic invention is
not rendered unpatentable by the fact that a prior
patent has been issued on a distinct improvement of
that invention. We think this appeal clearly comes
within the exception set out in the Mann and
Koppleman case, supra, since none of the appealed
claims could have been made on the Truitt
disclosure, nor do both applications disclose the
same invention. Further, we think that the
appellants should not be denied a patent for their
invention because of the specific improvement patent
to Truitt merely on the basis of the common
assignee.
Stanley, 214 F.2d at 159, 102 USPQ at 240.
The court in Stanley discussed Thomson-Houston Electric
Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 80 F. 712 (6th Cir. 1897), which is
relied upon by appellant (request, pages 3-4). The Stanley
court stated that in Thomson-Houston, the court held that the
‘451 patent, which was drawn to distinct and specific
structural improvements in the device claimed in the ‘695
patent which was based on an application filed more than a
year before the filing of the application which led to the
first-to-issue ‘451 patent, did not render the ‘695 patent
invalid. See Stanley, 214 F.2d at 154-55, 102 USPQ at 237.
Thus, the facts in Thomson-Houston were comparable to those in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007