Appeal No. 2005-1278 Page 5
Application No. 10/145,226
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in
the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are
claiming common subject matter, as follows: A collapsible container arranged to
hold an object having a curvature along its length, comprising a base, a first pair
of opposed side walls and a second pair of opposed side walls.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented
from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during
prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller,
397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
. . .
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in
the referenced copending application and would be covered by any patent
granted on that copending application since the referenced copending application
and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: A
collapsible container arranged to hold an object having a curvature along its
length, comprising a base, a first pair of opposed side walls and a second pair of
opposed side walls. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant
would be prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant
application in the other copending application. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350,
158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
"Obviousness-type" double patenting is a judicially established doctrine which
prevents an unjustified extension of the patent right beyond the statutory time period,
that is, it extends the fundamental legal doctrine of double patenting to include "obvious
variants" of what already has been patented. See, for example, In re Berg, 140 F.2d
1428, 1432, 46 USPQ2d 1226, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1998) and General Foods Corp. v.
Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH, 972 F.2d 1272, 1279-80, 23 USPQ2d 1839, 1845 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). A rejection on the basis of obviousness-type double patenting thus must
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007