The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Feb 24th, 2020, 6:24pm

Forums Forums Help Help Search Search Members Members Calendar Calendar Login Login Register Register
   Intellectual Property Forums
  
  
Patent Filing and Prosecution
(Moderators: Forum Admin, JimIvey, JSonnabend)
   Obviousness-type Double Patenting
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: Obviousness-type Double Patenting  (Read 1007 times)
DJoshEsq
Full Member
***




   
Email

Posts: 104
Re: Obviousness-type Double Patenting
« Reply #5 on: Oct 29th, 2007, 3:21pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

a better question is why do you care...if the apps have the same priority date then who cares if you file a terminal disclaimer!  
 
IP Logged

D. Joshua Smith, Esq.
Registered Patent Attorney
McDonald Hopkins, LLC
Cleveland, OH
216-348-5400
Isaac
Senior Member
****




   


Posts: 3472
Re: Obviousness-type Double Patenting
« Reply #6 on: Oct 29th, 2007, 4:20pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Oct 29th, 2007, 3:21pm, DJoshEsq wrote:
a better question is why do you care...if the apps have the same priority date then who cares if you file a terminal disclaimer!
 

 
It still matters because in the terminal disclaimer, you also have to agree that the two patents will be commonly owned.
 
 
IP Logged

Isaac
biopico
Full Member
***




   


Posts: 434
Re: Obviousness-type Double Patenting
« Reply #7 on: Oct 29th, 2007, 5:54pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Oct 29th, 2007, 11:16am, bluesky wrote:
Thanks, but my ? is more related to whether the cited application/patent that forms the basis of the obviousness-type double patenting must be "prior art" within the meaning of 35 USC 102?  
 
I have reviewed some materials suggesting this is the case, but see no support for the assertion in the MPEP.  In the hypo, the priority date for all the applications would be the same, thus, none of the applications would be prior art to the other.
 
Love to hear anyone's thoughts on this.  Thanks.

 
Well, differences between 35 USC 103 and DP:  
 
As for "Prior Art", 35 USC 103 analysis:  prior art within the meaning of 35 USC 102; DP is about claims of a potentially conflicting patent or application with alone or with prior art within the meaning of 35 USC 102
IP Logged

Registered Patent Agent Specializing in All Areas of Biotechnology
Pages: 1 2  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board