Appeal 2007-1119
Application 10/200,207
Pursuant to § 534 of Pub. L. 103-465, the effective date of § 154(a)(2) is
8 June 1995.
A continuing application is a distinct application having a filing date
that is different from the filing date of the parent application. A continuing
application is entitled to the benefit of a previously filed, copending
application if it contains a specific reference to the previously filed
application and satisfies the other requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 120. Thus,
the CPAs filed by Applicants in this case, if filed under Rule 53(b) as
continuations of the 256 application, would have been granted filing dates of
21 January 1999 and 6 December 1999. Because these dates are not before
8 May 1995, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 154(c)(1) would not have applied
to patents issuing from the hypothetical applications filed under Rule 53(b).
This interpretation of § 154(c)(1) is a straight reading of what is a "patent
. . . that results from an application filed before . . . ". We have considered
the Official Gazette notice referred to by Applicants (1207 Off. Gaz. Pat.
Office 83 (24 February 1988)), which is a reprint of the notice of "Interim
rule with request for comments," 63 Fed. Reg. 5732 (4 February 1988),
although Applicants have not explained what interpretation they think is
expressed there. The only interpretation we have found is consistent with
the one set out supra: "[a]s the continued prosecution application practice
was not in effect prior to June 8, 1995, no patent issuing from a continued
prosecution application is entitled to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 154(c)."
Id. at 5733, quoting 62 Fed. Reg. 53144 (1997), 1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office
at 74 (response to comment 25) (1977).
Accordingly, the specific correction sought by Applicants would not
result in a reissued patent having a term of 17 years from the most recent
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013