<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
David,<br>
<br>
I think the issue is from the below section (I have bolded) of MPEP
804 whihc seems to allow for a secondary reference to be used (it
seems like for purposes of interpreting a term in one or the other
of the two items being considered (i.e., what a PHOSITA would
understand the term to mean/encompass):<br>
<blockquote>3. Obviousness Analysis
<div> </div>
<p> A nonstatutory double patenting rejection, if not based on an
anticipation rationale or an "unjustified timewise extension"
rationale, is "analogous to [a failure to meet] the
nonobviousness requirement of <a
href="https://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/103.html">35 U.S.C.
103</a> " except that the patent disclosure principally
underlying the double patenting rejection is not considered
prior art. In re Braithwaite, 379 F.2d 594, 154 USPQ 29 (CCPA
1967). Even though the specification of the applied patent or
copending application is not prior art, it may still be used to
interpret the applied claims. See paragraph II.B.1, above. The
analysis employed with regard to nonstatutory double patenting
is "similar to, but not necessarily the same as that undertaken
under 35 USC § 103." In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 592-93, 19
USPQ2d 1289, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Longi, 759 F.2d
887, 892 n.4, 225 USPQ 645, 648 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); see also
Geneva Pharmaceuticals, 349 F.3d at 1378 n.1, 68 USPQ2d at 1869
n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Basell Poliolefine, 547 F.3d 1371,
1379, 89 USPQ2d 1030, 1036 (Fed. Cir. 2008). </p>
<p> In view of the similarities, the factual inquiries set forth
in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)
that are applied for establishing a background for determining
obviousness under <a
href="https://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/103.html">35 U.S.C.
103</a> should be considered when making a nonstatutory double
patenting analysis based on "obviousness." See <a
href="https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2141.html">MPEP §
2141</a> for guidelines for determining obviousness. These
factual inquiries are summarized as follows: </p>
<ul style="list-style-type: none;">
<li class="indent"> (A) Determine the scope and content of a
patent claim relative to a claim in the application at issue;
</li>
<li class="indent"> (B) Determine the differences between the
scope and content of the patent claim as determined in (A) and
the claim in the application at issue; </li>
<li class="indent"> (C) Determine the level of ordinary skill in
the pertinent art; and </li>
<li class="indent"> (D) Evaluate any objective indicia of
nonobviousness. </li>
</ul>
<p> Any nonstatutory double patenting rejection made under the
obviousness analysis should make clear: </p>
<ul style="list-style-type: none;">
<li class="indent"> (A) The differences between the inventions
defined by the conflicting claims \u2014 a claim in the patent
compared to a claim in the application; and </li>
<li class="indent"> (B) The reasons why a person of ordinary
skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in
the claim at issue would have been an obvious variation of the
invention defined in a claim in the patent. </li>
</ul>
<p> <b>Any secondary reference used to support an obviousness
analysis for a nonstatutory double patenting rejection must be
prior art under <a
href="https://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/102.html">35
U.S.C. 102</a> or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102</b>. See <a
href="https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2120.html">MPEP §
2120</a> et seq. for more information on determining if a
reference is prior art and <a
href="https://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2141.html">MPEP §
2141</a>, subsection II.A, for determining the scope and
content of the prior art. </p>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">
<style type="text/css">
span.c16 {color: #800000}
span.c15 {font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 8pt}
span.c14 {color: #800000; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 8pt; text-decoration: underline}
span.c13 {color: #0000FF; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 8pt; text-decoration: underline}
span.c12 {color: #800000; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 8pt}
span.c11 {font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 8pt}
span.c10 {color: #656565; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 10pt}
span.c9 {color: #800000; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 10pt}
span.c8 {font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial}
span.c7 {color: #989898; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 8pt}
span.c6 {color: #656565; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 8pt}
span.c5 {font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 10pt}
span.c4 {color: #656565; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 11pt}
span.c3 {color: #000080; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial}
span.c2 {font-size: 8pt}
span.c1 {color: #0000FF; font-family: Verdana, Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 12pt}
</style><span class="c1"><strong>Richard Straussman</strong></span><span
class="c3"><span class="c2"><strong><br>
</strong></span> </span><strong><span class="c4">Senior
Counsel</span><span class="c5"><strong><br>
</strong></span> <span class="c6">Registered Patent Attorney</span><span
class="c5"><br>
</span></strong> <span class="c6">Member NY, NJ & CT Bars</span><span
class="c5"><br>
</span> <span class="c7"><strong>. . . . . . . . . . . . . .</strong></span>
<span class="c8"></span> <span class="c5"><br>
</span> <span class="c9"><strong>Weitzman Law Offices, LLC</strong></span><span
class="c16"><span class="c5"><br>
</span> <span class="c9"><strong>Intellectual Property Law</strong></span><span
class="c9"><br>
</span> <span class="c4">425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 401</span><span
class="c5"><br>
</span> <span class="c4">Roseland, NJ 07068</span><span
class="c11"><br>
</span> <span class="c12"><strong>direct line</strong></span> <span
class="c6">973.403.9943<br>
</span> <span class="c12"><strong>main</strong></span> <span
class="c6">973.403.9940<br>
</span> <span class="c12"><strong>fax</strong></span><span
class="c12"></span> <span class="c6">973.403.9944</span><span
class="c11"><br>
</span> <span class="c12"><strong>e-mail</strong></span><span
class="c6"></span> <span class="c13"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rstraussman@weitzmanip.com">rstraussman@weitzmanip.com</a></span><span
class="c11"><br>
<br>
</span> <span class="c14"><strong><a
href="http://www.weitzmanip.com/"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://www.weitzmanip.com</a><br>
</strong></span> <span class="c15"><br>
</span><br>
<br>
<br>
</span>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/24/2025 10:41 AM, David Boundy
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJwugqHWhtpOrRo+WAAfHfPwWdzukN9dBCfpOP2T78-wjbF1Qw@mail.gmail.com">MPEP
§ 804(II)(B)(6)</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>