Ex Parte No Data - Page 23


                  Appeals 2006-1443 and 2006-1465                                                                            
                  Reexamination Control Nos. 90/004,950 and 90/005,200                                                       
             1                                               7.                                                              
             2           At oral argument, Appellants indicated that “the final product of the [Ochiai] '216                 
             3    process is substantially coextensive with the two final product patents that are the subject               
             4    of the double patenting rejection.”  Tr-17:19 through 18:4.  One of the "two final product                 
             5    patents" is Ochiai '606.  Nevertheless, we recognize that the process of Ochiai ‘216                       
             6    cannot be used to make all of the cephems within the scope of claims 1 and 15 of Ochiai                    
             7    ‘606.  In other words, the scope of the cephems that can be made using the process of                      
             8    claims 1-5 of Ochiai ‘216 is narrower than the scope of the cephems covered by Ochiai                      
             9    ‘606, although the scope of the cephems made by claim 15 of Ochiai ‘606 is very close.                     
            10    However, to the extent that the process of Ochiai ‘216 is used to make only some of the                    
            11    cephems within the scope of the Ochiai ‘606 claims, Appellants ultimately conceded at                      
            12    oral argument that the public is not entitled to use that process to make “some of the                     
            13    cephems” of Ochiai ‘606.  Tr-19:19 through 20:10.  In effect, the claims of  Ochiai ‘216                   
            14    operate to extend the patent rights conferred by now expired Ochiai ‘606 at least to the                   
            15    extent that the Ochiai ‘606 and Ochiai ‘216 claims are co-extensive.                                       
            16           Given the rationale upon which double patenting is based, we see no reason why a                    
            17    process claim and the expired compound have to be co-extensive in scope to sustain a                       
            18    rejection for double patenting.  Just as one described species or several species may                      
            19    anticipate a genus in an anticipation analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) even if other                      
            20    described species do not anticipate, we see no reason why double patenting should not                      
            21    apply, under the facts of this case, where a process claim operates to preclude making of                  
            22    some compounds of an expired compound patent.  It should suffice to justify double                         
            23    patenting that some or all of the compound claims of an expired compound patent                            


                                                             23                                                              



Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007