Ex Parte No Data - Page 17


                  Appeals 2006-1443 and 2006-1465                                                                            
                  Reexamination Control Nos. 90/004,950 and 90/005,200                                                       
             1                   thereunder, its validity may be sustained.”  (Emphasis and numbers in                       
             2                   brackets added).                                                                            
             3           One of the “foregoing and other authorities” referred to by the Miller court is                     
             4    Mosler Safe & Lock Co. v. Mosler, Bahmann & Co., 127 U.S. 354, 8 S.Ct. 1148 (1888).                        
             5    According to the Miller court, in Mosler “it was held that, a patent having issued for a                   
             6    product as made by a certain process, a later patent could not be granted for the process                  
             7    which results in the same product.”  151 U.S. at 197, 14 S.Ct. at 315.                                     
             8                                               4.                                                              
             9           Appellants present two arguments, using the rubric “independent and distinct”, in                   
            10    an attempt to fit their case for reversal into the “distinct and separate” category mentioned              
            11    in Miller.                                                                                                 
            12           Appellants’ first “independent and distinct” argument is based in part on a                         
            13    restriction requirement made in a different Ochiai application by former Examiner                          
            14    Nicholas Rizzo.  At the same time, Appellants candidly acknowledge that “[n]o claim is                     
            15    made for the statutory shield of 35 U.S.C. § 121 ***.”  See the last three lines on page 12                
            16    of the Appeal Brief.                                                                                       
            17           Appellants’ second “independent and distinct” argument is based in part on their                    
            18    opinion that there are methods other than the method of Ochiai ‘216 for making the                         
            19    cephems of expired Ochiai ‘606.                                                                            









                                                             17                                                              



Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007