Ex Parte Reinert - Page 5

                Appeal 2007-2399                                                                                 
                Application 10/896,417                                                                           
                one at a time, back to an earlier filed application;1 the earliest filed                         
                application properly claims the benefit of Reinert ‘362 and Reinert ‘201.                        
                Appellant does not cite any authority, and we know of none, for according                        
                benefit based on a series of nested claims2 to an earlier filed patent                           
                application, where the full chain is not explicitly referenced in any one                        
                application, let alone in the application for which benefit of the earlier filing                
                dates is asserted.                                                                               
                       Appellant also asserts that his application is entitled to the filing date                
                of the earlier filed applications because a statement3 was submitted during                      
                prosecution which traced its priority back to Reinert ‘362 and Reinert ‘201                      
                (Br. 13).  35 U.S.C. § 120 is explicit:  a later filed application is entitled to                
                “benefit of the filing date of the first application . . . if it contains or is                  
                amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.”  In                   
                                                                                                                
                1 For example, as explained on pages 11-12 of the Brief:                                         
                       1) U.S. Pat. No. 6,572,240, specifically referenced on page 1 of the                      
                instant application, is stated on its cover page to be a continuation-in-part of                 
                U.S. Ser. No. 09/514,089, filed Feb. 28, 2000, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,196,697;                      
                       2) U.S. Pat. No. 6,196,697 is stated on its cover page to be a                            
                continuation-in-part of U.S. Ser. No. 09/118,980, filed on Jul. 10, 1998, now                    
                U.S. Pat. No. 6,033,083;                                                                         
                       3) U.S. Pat No. 6,033,088 is stated on its cover page to be a                             
                continuation-in-part of U.S. Ser. No. 08/687,809, filed July 26, 1996, now                       
                U.S. Pat. No. 5,779,349; and                                                                     
                       4) U.S. Pat. No. 5,779,349 is stated on its cover page to be a                            
                continuation-in-part of Reinhart ‘362 and Reinhart ‘201.                                         
                2 Like a set of Russian dolls of graduated size, each encased inside the next                    
                larger doll.                                                                                     
                3 Appellant states that the statement was submitted on Oct. 21, 2004 (Br.                        
                13).  We could not find a paper filed on that date which describes the                           
                priority tree of the instant application.  However, we do find such a                            
                statement made in a paper filed Jan. 17, 2006.                                                   
                                                       5                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013