patag2001
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
 |
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting
« on: Dec 6th, 2007, 1:01pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
The following two paragraphs were lifted from MPEP 804:
A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
A double patenting rejection of the obviousness-type, if not based on an anticipation rationale, is "analogous to [a failure to meet] the non-obviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 103" except that the patent principally underlying the double patenting rejection is not considered prior art.
The latter portion of the above second paragraph generally says the patent triggering the double patent rejection is not considered prior art. However, the process of detecting non-statutory double patenting appears to be the same as the process used for rejecting prior art. Is this correct? Or is non-statutory double patenting focused on the claims as compared to a prior art rejection based on the whole patent application? I’m not sure I understand the distinction if there is a distinction?
Many Thanks!
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print
Author
IP Logged
Remove