<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
My questions are: <br>
(1) Is the rejection referencing the third party reference
proper at all (other than for something trivial), particularly when
the context is different and all the missing element aspects are not
met?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>NO. Obviousness-type double patenting is about the claims and only the claims. A later claim with omitted elements can be obviously double-patenting over an earlier narrow claim, and a claim can be "obvious" over another f elements are substituted, and there's <i>Schneller</i>-type double patenting where the specification says that elements added in the later claim are essential to practice of the earlier broader claim. But those three circumstances are the only ones I know of that permit difference between two claims. Remember that obviousness-type double patenting was joined at the hip to same-invention double patenting until the mid-1960s. They haven't diverged very far from each other.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
(2) Is it proper to argue against the obviousness-type
double patenting as if this was a simple obviousness rejection,
i.e., not every element is disclosed and so even if the two were
combined, it would not result in the claimed invention due to the
absence of any teaching or suggestion of specifically having either
or both of a single layer and/or a non-laminated sheet?<br></div></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">There's no such thing as "obvious to combine" in obviousness-type double patenting. Obvious to modify, yes. To combine, no.</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Here's my form argument. The case with the bad <i>dicta</i> is <i>In re Longi</i>--before you use this, you should Shepardize <i>Longi</i> abd <i>AbbVie </i>to make sure my understanding of the law from several years ago is still sound Adapt to your circumstances.</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">
<span name="place">
</span><div style="margin-left:40px"><span name="place"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:22pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman""><span> </span>The Action
then errs in introducing prior art into a double patenting issue to show a
claim limitation.<span> </span>Double patenting
considers the <i>claims</i>, not claims in
combination with prior art.<span> </span>The
specification <b><i>of the reference patent</i></b> may be considered for claim
construction, and may be considered for a showing of \u201cpatentably indistinct,\u201d
but those situations are <i>extremely </i>narrow,
and require specific showings and approval of a T.C. Director.<a href="#m_-3036653827375160544__ftn1" name="m_-3036653827375160544__ftnref1" title=""><span style="vertical-align:super"><span><span style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"">[1]</span></span></span></span></a><span> </span>The Action does not invoke those exceptions,
does not make the required showings, and does not bear TC Director
approval.<span> </span>But, to Applicant\u2019s knowledge,
the reasoning in the Action\u2014to <b><i>add</i></b> a limitation from another
reference, without grounding in specific language of a specific reference
claim\u2014is not authorized in any Federal Circuit case nor in the MPEP.<span> </span>Applicant's Reply of [date] requested that, if the
Examiner is aware of a case or guidance to the contrary, a copy of that case or
guidance would be helpful.<span> </span>No such case
or guidance has been supplied.<span> </span>Appellant
is aware of none.<span> </span>In absence of any such
case or guidance, the Examiner acted beyond his authority.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:22pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman""><span> </span>In <i>AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of
Rheumatology</i>, 764 F.3d 1366, 1379, 112 USPQ2d 1001, 1010-11 (Fed Cir.
2014), the Federal Circuit considered a case much like this one\u2014the challenge
relied on external prior art to supplement the claims of the reference patent,
instead of a comparison of only the claims.<span>
</span>The Federal Circuit rejected that attempt, though acknowledged a few
exceptions.<span> </span><i>AbbVie</i> reiterates the general rule, \u201cnarrow species can be
non-obvious and [patentable] despite a patent on its genus,\u201d though with
exceptions.<span> </span><i>AbbVie</i>, 764 F.3d at 1379, 112 USPQ2d at 1010.<span> </span>This Action makes no showing that any of
those exceptions apply.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:22pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman""><span> </span>MPEP
§ 804(B)(1) instructs that <span>when</span> making an obvious-type
double patenting analysis, the Action must consider two specific <b><i>claims</i></b>:
an Action must select one specific pair of claims (one from the reference
patent and one from this application), and make specific showings, including
matching them up element-to-element, and show that those two specific claims
are \u201cnot patentably distinct\u201d <b><i>from each other</i></b> (for example, using
one of the form paragraphs from MPEP Chapter 800).<span> </span>An obviousness showing based on combination
of the reference claim with other prior art is not an authorized approach.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:22pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman""><span> </span>The Action
makes no showing that any pair of claims (one in this application, one in any
one of the \u2019927, \u2019397, \u2019786, \u2019748, or \u2019548 patent) are patentably indistinct
from each other.<span> </span>Note that it\u2019s not
required to address each and every claim, but MPEP § 804(II)(B) does
require <b><i>specific</i></b> showings with respect to <b><i>one</i></b> claim pair.<span> </span>The Action is insufficient to raise any
rejection.</p></span></div><span name="place">
<div><br clear="all">
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%">
<div id="m_-3036653827375160544gmail-ftn1">
<p style="margin:4pt 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman""><a href="#m_-3036653827375160544__ftnref1" name="m_-3036653827375160544__ftn1" title=""></a><span> </span><span style="vertical-align:super"><span><span style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"">[1]</span></span></span></span><span> </span>The most common fact pattern is analogous to <i>In re Schneller</i>, discussed in MPEP
§ 804(II)(B)(6).<span> </span>In these cases,
the earlier-to-issue patent discloses and claims a compound, and discloses
either a small genus of methods of use, or identifies one specific method of
use as being especially pertinent.<span> </span>MPEP
§ 804(II)(B)(6) uses bold face to stress that <i>Schneller</i> situations \u201c<b>will
be rare</b>\u201d and \u201cThe Technology Center (TC) Director must approve.\u201d<span> </span>In evaluating an earlier patent for
obviousness-type double patenting, the disclosure <i>of the reference patent</i> may be evaluated to establish that the
later claim is \u201cnot patentably distinct\u201d from the earlier, as an exception to
the general rule that double patenting requires claim limitations that are not
in one-for-one identical-or-obvious relationship.<span> </span><i>E.g.</i>,
<i>UCB, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc.</i>,
890 F.3d 1313, 1323-25 (Fed. Cir. 2018); <i>Eli
Lilly and <span>Co.</span> v. Teva Parenteral Medicines,
Inc.</i>, 689 F.3d 1368, 1378-80, 104 USPQ2d 1134, 1141-43 (Fed. Cir. 2012).<span> </span>But none of these cases permits what the
Examiner attempts here\u2014introducing external prior art to gap-fill differences
between the present claim and the reference claim.<span> </span>No case offers license to look outside the
reference patent to external prior art.</p>
<p style="margin:4pt 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman""><span> </span>One early Federal Circuit case
suggested in <i>dicta</i> that external
prior art (outside the reference claim) could be considered in obviousness type
double patenting, but did not explain the factual circumstances in which this
might arise.<span> </span>After several hours of
searching in Westlaw, the undersigned attorney identified no Federal Circuit or
PTAB case that had ever done so.<span> </span>The
only relevant case was <i>AbbVie</i>, which
explains that there may be no situations that actually meet the earlier <i>dicta</i>.<span>
</span>No case was located that allowed for \u201cmotivation to <i>combine</i>\u201d other references, only use of the reference patent\u2019s
specification as motivation to <i>modify</i>
the reference claim.</p>
</div>
</div>
</span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div>
</div>