Appeal No. 2002-1445
Application No. 09/280,775
the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
Double Patenting
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 18
through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming the same invention
(double patenting) as that of claims 1 through 16 of Dewar '363
(U.S. Patent No. 5,628,363) and of claims 1 through 13 of Dewar
'600 (U.S. Patent No. 5,655,600).
35 U.S.C. § 101 proscribes two patents from issuing on the
same invention. Same invention means identical inventions. See
In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441, 164 USPQ 619, 621 (CCPA 1970).
It follows therefore that, the issue now before us is whether the
identical invention is being claimed twice.
3(...continued)
from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007