hubbell2, kaplan, berg

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1756 Ex Parte Lee et al 11086022 - (D) KENNEDY 103 HONEYWELL/FAEGRE BERMAN, JASON

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2493 Ex Parte Borenstein 12428649 - (D) NAPPI 102/103 HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC SIDDIQI, MOHAMMAD A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Perez-Lopez et al 12522284 - (D) HOFFMANN 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY PRONE, JASON D

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2614 Ex Parte Conlon 12338318 - (D) SILVERMAN 103 double patenting Basch & Nickerson LLP YANG, ANDREW GUS

We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that two-way obviousness is applicable to the record before us. As stated in the MPEP:

Similarly, even if the application under examination is the earlier-filed application, only a one-way determination of distinctness is needed to support a double patenting rejection in the absence of a finding: (A) that "the PTO is solely responsible for any delays" in prosecution of the earlier-filed application (In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d 1140, 1150, 106 USPQ2d 1032, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2013); and (B) that the applicant could not have filed the conflicting claims in a single (i.e., the earlier-filed) application (In re Kaplan, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In Kaplan, a generic invention (use of solvents) was invented by Kaplan, and a species thereof (i.e., use of a specific combination of solvents) was invented by Kaplan and Walker. Multiple applications were necessary to claim both the broad and narrow inventions because at the time the applications were filed, 35 U.S.C. 116 did not expressly authorize filing a patent application in the name of joint inventors who did not make a contribution to the invention defined in each claim in the patent.). Compare In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998), wherein the genus and species claims could have been filed in the same application.
MPEP §804(11 )(8)(1 )(b ).

The above cited cases make it clear the two-way test is a "narrow exception to general rule of the one-way test" (Berg, 140 F.3d at 1432) and the two-way test does not apply where PTO was not "solely responsible for the delay in causing [a] second-filed application to issue prior to the first" (Hubbell, 709 F.3d at 1149).

Berg, In re, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 804

Kaplan, In re, 789 F.2d 1574, 229 USPQ 678 (Fed. Cir. 1986) 804

2695 Ex Parte Yilmaz 12605779 - (D) DIXON 103 103 Baker Botts L.L.P. KIYABU, KARIN A

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Wolf et al 12499417 - (D) HASTINGS 103 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) NGUYEN, NGOC YEN M

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2126 Ex Parte Wesson et al 13059093 - (D) CUTITTA 103 Cantor Colburn LLP - Otis Elevator SIVANESAN, SIVALINGAM

2199 Ex Parte Aarni et al 12468792 - (D) HOWARD 103 Alston & Bird LLP Nokia Corporation HEBERT, THEODORE E

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2457 Ex Parte Kreig et al 12572667 - (D) HUME 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM POUGHKEEPSIE NANO, SARGON N

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3739 Ex Parte Cunningham et al 12714086 - (D) CAPP 112(2)/102/103 Covidien LP VAHDAT, KHADIJEH A