Ex Parte No Data - Page 24


                  Appeals 2006-1443 and 2006-1465                                                                            
                  Reexamination Control Nos. 90/004,950 and 90/005,200                                                       
             1    continue to be monopolized by virtue of patent rights in a narrow method patent.  In                       
             2    In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 442, 164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970), the former CCPA                             
             3    noted that issuance of a second patent to a process of treating meat would extend the time                 
             4    of monopoly as to a process of treating pork claimed in a first patent.  Here, to the extent               
             5    the Ochiai ‘216 patent extends the monopoly as to the compounds which can be made by                       
             6    that process which are the same as the compounds covered by claim 1 of Ochiai ‘606, the                    
             7    monopoly of Ochiai ‘606 is also extended, particularly as to products made abroad by the                   
             8    process and subsequently imported into the United States.  Tr-20:11 through 21:1.                          
             9           Double patenting should not turn on “creative” method claim drafting.  Rather,                      
            10    the focus should be on an analysis of whether all or some of a patentee’s patent rights are                
            11    being unjustly extended.  For example, in this very case it is not apparent, and Mr. Usami                 
            12    did not explain, why Ochiai ‘216 method claims were not drafted to include making all of                   
            13    the cephems of Ochiai ‘606 claims 1 and 15.  Appellants conceded at oral argument, as                      
            14    they had to, that product and process claims could have been presented in a single                         
            15    application.  Tr-11:7-10.  See also Tr-25:6 through 26:1.  In our opinion, what might be                   
            16    characterized as Appellants’ creative and conveniently timed claim drafting should not be                  
            17    a back door “around” double patenting.                                                                     
            18                                               8.                                                              
            19           Appellants presented the declaration testimony of Mr. Hirofumi Usami (Ex 1035)                      
            20    to explain why the Ochiai ‘216 process claims were first presented in 1990 in the                          
            21    application that matured into Ochiai ‘216.  Ochiai ‘216 is based on several continuations,                 
            22    continuations-in-part and divisions of an Ochiai application filed in 1975, viz., Ochiai                   
            23    ‘888.  As noted in our findings, Mr. Usami states that process claims were not earlier                     


                                                             24                                                              



Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007