Appeals 2006-1443 and 2006-1465
Reexamination Control Nos. 90/004,950 and 90/005,200
1 Ochiai ‘216 was filed, that it was worth Takeda’s time and effort to file “method of
2 making” claims for some of the cephem compounds of the claims of Ochiai ‘606.
3 Mr. Usami does not tell us why the cephems of method claims of Ochiai ‘216 are
4 not exactly co-extensive with the cephems of Ochiai ‘606 and we perceive no reason why
5 they could not have been exactly co-extensive.
6 Other findings as necessary appear in the Discussion portion of this opinion.
7 D. Discussion
8 1.
9 Double patenting is designed to prevent an unjustified extension of patent rights
10 beyond the term of a patent. Since double patenting seeks to avoid unjustly extending
11 patent rights at the expense of the public, the focus of any double patenting analysis is on
12 the claims of the patents involved in the analysis, in this case Ochiai ‘216 and Ochiai
13 ‘606. As applied to the facts of this case, the appeal boils down to the following issue:
14 Having taken out a full-term cephem compound patent
15 (Ochiai ‘606),
16 are Appellants also entitled to take out yet another full-term patent
17 to a method of making some of those cephem compounds where
18 (1) the claimed method for making the cephem compounds is
19 described in the cephem compound patent and
20 (2) there is no credible alternative method for making the
21 cephems which does not involve an infringement of the method patent?
22 We think not.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007