Ex Parte CHRISTENSEN et al - Page 5


            Appeal No. 2000-1646                                                                              
            Application 08/467,425                                                                            
                   The public should … be able to act on the assumption that upon the expiration of           
                   the patent it will be free to use not only the invention claimed in the patent but         
                   also the modifications or variants which would have been obvious to those of               
                   ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, taking into account          
                   the skill of the art and prior art other than the invention claimed in the issued          
                   patent (Emphasis in Original).                                                             
            In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892-893, 225 USPQ 645, 648 (Fed. Cir. 1985), citing In re              
            Zickendraht, 319 F.2d 225, 232, 138 USPQ 23, 27 (CCPA 1963) (Rich, J. concurring).                
                   We decline the Appellants’ inherent invitation to substitute a restriction                 
            requirement standard for this rationale.  Claims may be independent and distinct and              
            yet remain not patentably distinct.  The proper analysis is an obviousness analysis,              
            which the Examiner has put forth and which remains unrebutted.  Our independent                   
            review of Claim 1 of Christensen shows the susceptor for alleviating tension in a                 
            thermoplastic weld, the susceptor encased in a thermoplastic resin, with fiber                    
            reinforcement along the top and bottom of the susceptor sandwiching the suceptor.                 
            (Christensen, column 13, lines 44-62).  We, therefore, agree that this renders the                
            instantly rejected claims suitably rejected under an obviousness-type double-patenting            
            rejection.                                                                                        
                   The Appellants’ additional argument that the issued patent and the pending                 
            application will expire simultaneously is without merit.  Patent terms may be adjusted for        
            various reasons, e.g. pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154 (b).  Further, the Examiner has                 
            correctly noted that an additional consideration is avoidance of the potential for                
            harassment of an accused infringer by multiple parties with patents covering the same             
            patentable invention.  (Examiner’s Answer, page 6, lines 9-15).  We agree with the                
            Examiner.  See also In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982).                      
                   We therefore affirm the obviousness-type double-patenting rejection.                       

                                                      5                                                       



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007