Appeal No. 2007-0111
Reexamination 90/006,297
1 30, 2005 Decision at 13-49, the long chain of applications resulted from the
2 patentees’ numerous abandonments and re-filings of continuation or divisional
3 applications containing claims of substantially different scope. The prosecution of
4 such claims of substantially different scope directly affected the rate and time of
5 prosecution because many of these claims were held unpatentable.
6 It was not until October 2, 1964 that the patentees submitted claims
7 somewhat similar to, but not of the same scope as, the appealed claims of this
8 reexamination for interference purposes. The patentees also urged the PTO to
9 declare interferences against “any and all other applications pending before the
10 Patent office and claiming the polymerization of unsaturated hydrocarbons within
11 the formula given, with the present catalysts,” thus precipitating various other
12 interferences unrelated to the subject matter on appeal. (Amendment filed on July
13 14, 1959; Exhibit A attached to the Amendment filed on 1985, paper 58 in the ‘840
14 application; Amendment filed on October 19, 1984 in Application 06/498,699.)
15 Although the patentees could have done so, they did not file another application to
16 separate the October 2, 1964 claims. Ultimately, the patentees did prevail in the
17 interference proceeding involving the October 2, 1964 claims when the United
18 States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) reversed the Board’s ruling
patent appears to contain a printing error in that the description at page 5, lines 3-8
of the specification is missing.) While identified as continuations, the disclosures
of these applications are not all identical.
39
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013