E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Guest Post -- Obvious To Try My Patience: Federal Circuit's Evolving Measure of Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 | Main | Guest Post: USPTO Public Forum on Patent Guidance: My Thoughts as a Speaker and Attendee »

June 10, 2014

Comments

I'm wondering why Dinsmore got a double patenting rejection in the first place, given that the reference application was not commonly owned. It seems that a prior art rejection or declaration of an interference would have been more appropriate. If anyone made an *error* in this case, it looks like it was the original examiner.

I quite agree with you, Sean. It points to some slight misjudgement by the original examiner.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31