Appeal No. 2001-0905
Application No. 09/163,412
give rise to a different invention for purposes of double
patenting. See In re White, 405 F.2d 904, 906, 160 USPQ
417, 418 (CCPA 1969). As to the additional language of
"related to a first parameter (T204)" in Application No.
09/107,025, the phrase merely describes in slightly greater
detail the same time interval referenced in both claims. If
anything the present claim is broader by eliminating such
language and would read upon claim 16 of Application No.
09/107,025. However, the steps and the time intervals
referenced in both claims are the same, with or without the
extra descriptive language in claim 16 of Application No.
09/107,025. Accordingly, we find no patentable distinction
between the two claims, and certainly no two way distinct-
ness as asserted by appellant. Therefore, we will sustain
the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claim 16,
and of claims 17 through 25 grouped therewith, over the
claims of Application
No. 09/107,025.
CONCLUSION
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007