Appeal No. 2002-1905
Application No. 09/240,563
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and
we will sustain the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of
claims 22 through 27.
Appellant argues (brief, pages 2 and 3) that it is unnecessary
and inappropriate to require a terminal disclaimer because any
patent issuing from this application will expire before Boothby as
a result of new laws defining the terms of patents, and because
In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) is not
binding precedent on the Federal Circuit.
In the first appeal to be heard and published by the newly
created Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court sitting
in banc considered what case law, if any, may appropriately serve
as established precedent, and decided that “the holdings of our
predecessor courts, the United States Court of Claims and the
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, announced by
those courts before the close of business September 30, 1982, shall
be binding as precedent in this court.” South Corp. v. U.S., 690
F.2d 1368, 215 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1982). Notwithstanding the
earlier termination date of any patent that may issue from this
application, appellant’s arguments fail to convince us that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007