Source: http://www.ptab.us/2009/09/11406854-ex-parte-woltman-et-al.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:19:31+00:00

Document:
filed on the date of the prior application ….
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has previously held that § 135(b)(2) need not explicitly recite "effective filing date" for the provisions of § 120 to apply to it. See Ryan v. Young, Interference 105,504, Paper 116, pp. 25-27 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008); Ding v. Singer, Interference 105,436, Paper 36, pp. 8-13 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2007). Both § 120 and § 135(b)(2) use the word "application" and there is no reason to believe that Congress intended to have "application" mean one thing in § 135(b)(2) and something else in § 120, thereby excluding the earlier filing date benefits of § 120 to applications filed after an application is published. Ryan, p. 26. § 120 does not require another statutory section to make an express reference to it before its provision comes to life; there are many examples [e.g., §§ 102(b), 102(d), and 102(e)] of applying the effective filing date of § 120 without any specific reference to § 120. Ding, p. 12.
Ex Parte Woltman et al GRIMES 102(e)/103(a) KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.
Ex Parte Parthasarathy HOFF 102(e)/103(a) HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
Ex Parte Worthington GREEN 102(b)/103(a) KOLISCH HARTWELL, P.C.

References: § 135
 § 120
 v. 
 v. 
 § 120
 § 135
 § 135
 § 120
 § 120
 § 120
 § 120
 § 120