Appeal No. 2004-0917
Application No. 09/684,210
In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892, 225 USPQ 645, 648 (Fed. Cir.
1985)). According to our reviewing court, the fundamental
reason for the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is
to prevent unjustified timewise extension of the right to
exclude granted by a patent, regardless of how the extension
arose. Ely Lilly, 251 F.3d at 967-968, 58 USPQ2d at 1878.
Pickett’s patented claims 1 through 5 and 12 recite:
1. A conduit connection, comprising:
a housing having a fastener port and a conduit
port offset from said fastener port;
a conduit having an annular bead spaced a
predetermined distance from one end, said one end
being inserted into said conduit port of said housing;
a connecting block abutting said housing, said
connecting block comprising:
a conduit passage therethrough, said conduit
located into said conduit passage such that said
annular bead of said conduit is trapped between said
connecting block and said housing;
a fastener passage therethrough, said fastener
passage being offset from said conduit passage; and
an engagement surface thereon;
means for fastening said connecting block to said
housing, said means for fastening mounted in said
fastener passage of said connecting block and said
fastener port of said housing; and
means for indicating full engagement of said
connecting block to said housing, said means for
indicating being interposed between said means for
fastening and said fastener passage of said connecting
block, said means for indicating communicating with
said means for fastening and said engagement surface
of said connecting block to provide visible, audible,
and tactile verification that said connecting block is
fully engaged with said housing.
extent they have been argued as separately patentable within the
meaning of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003)(effective Apr. 21, 1995).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007