Ex Parte 6497843 et al - Page 8

               Appeal 2007-0393                                                                       
               Reexamination Control 90/006,786                                                       
               Patent 6,497,843                                                                       
           1        Our conclusion of obviousness is consistent with Patentee’s own                   
           2   characterization and treatment of the subject matter during the prosecution            
           3   of the application which issued as the 843 patent.  Patentee filed the                 
           4   application under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.53(b) characterizing it as a            
           5   continuation of Application 09/192,969.  That application issued as the 620            
           6   patent.  See Application 10/091,162, Transmittal Letter filed March 4, 2002.           
           7   A “continuation” is a term of art in patent prosecution.  The word refers to a         
           8   second application for the same invention claimed in a prior nonprovisional            
           9   application and filed before the original prior application becomes                    
          10   abandoned or patented.  Patentee’s characterization of the application as a            
          11   “continuation” is not inconsistent with our conclusion that the subject matter         
          12   of Claim 1 is patentably indistinct from the subject matter of Claims 4 and 6          
          13   of the 620 patent.  Additionally, Patentee voluntarily submitted a terminal            
          14   disclaimer, prior to any examination by a patent examiner.  Such action is             
          15   also not inconsistent with our conclusion that the subject matter of the two           
          16   patents is not patentably distinct.                                                    
          17        Patentee argues that the wicking configurations in the 620 and 843                
          18   patents are not art recognized equivalents and therefore are not obvious.  The         
          19   Examiner’s Answer does not rely on this rationale, nor do we.  We base our             
          20   affirmance on the understanding one skilled in the art would have of the               
          21   scientific principles and concepts which govern how the processes claimed              
          22   in the 620 and 843 patents work.  That knowledge includes an understanding             
          23   of the capillary action which causes the urine to move up the wicking means.           
          24   From that we infer that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have             
          25   expected that the method would work for its intended purpose as long as the            
          26   urine wicked into contact with the assay strip.  In other words, the difference        

                                                 - 8 -                                                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013