United States Federal Circuit

The rejection of patent claims related to tissue repair and regeneration by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) is affirmed, where the Board did not err in concluding that the pending claims were barred under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting because: 1) complete identity of inventors or common ownership is not a prerequisite to an obviousness-type double patenting rejection; 2) Hubbell does not qualify for a terminal disclaimer under the statute, and he is not entitled to file one as an equitable measure; and 3) a two-way analysis is not applicable because Hubbell cannot establish that the PTO is solely responsible for any delays associated with the claims on appeal.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/07/2013
• Published 03/07/2013

Judges

• O’MALLEY

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel