stating that claims relied on in double patenting rejections are not treated as prior art
How later courts described this case
- stating that claims relied on in double patenting rejections are not treated as prior art
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WORLEY; Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I find no error whatever in the unanimous conclusion of the examiner and board, presumably better versed in this field than are we, that there is no patentable distinction between the respective claims of Sutherland and Carpenter. I respectfully suggest that to hold otherwise would constitute an unlawful extension of monopoly, a result Congress has historically sought to prevent.