Opinion ID: 2786706
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Obvious-Type Double Patenting

Text: Obviousness-type double patenting is a judicially created doctrine that “prevents the extension of the term of the original patent via the patenting of an obvious variation.” Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1999) opinion amended on reh’g, 204 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Under obviousness-type double patenting, a patent is invalid when it is merely an obvious variation of an invention disclosed and claimed in an earlier patent by the same inventor.” Id. The determination of whether there is obviousness-type double patenting is a two-step process: [1.] [The] court construes the claim in the ear- lier patent and the claim in the later patent and determines the differences. [2.] [T]he court determines whether the differ- ences in subject matter between the two claims render the claims patentably distinct. A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs. Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). A determination that there is obviousness-type double patenting must be based on the matter actually claimed; 6 IN RE: HITACHI METALS, LTD. reliance on the specification and not the claims is legal error. In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 893 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also Application of Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (CCPA 1970) (“[T]he patent disclosure may not be used as prior art.”). However, this does not mean that the court must close its eyes to the specification entirely. For example, the court may look to the specification to define terms found in the claims. Application of Vogel, 422 F.2d at 441. Additionally, in answering the question, “Does any claim in the application define merely an obvious variation of an invention disclosed and claimed in the [prior] patent?” the court may look to the various embodiments described in the specification as they provide a tangible and more meaningful method to discern whether what is claimed was merely modified in an obvious manner. Id. As this court’s predecessor has held, the use of the specification in this manner “is not in contravention of the cases forbidding its use as prior art, nor is it applying the patent as a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 103 . . . .” Id. at 442. Thus in limited circumstances, we may turn to the specification in the analysis of whether there is obviousness-type double patenting. In accordance with the two-prong obviousness-type double patenting test, we first construe the claims at issue and determine the differences in subject matter between the claims. The relevant claims of the ’368 patent claim a crystalline compound with a tetragonal structure with the general formula R(Fe,Co)B. Additionally, the claims require at least one element from each of its claimed R and M groups. Groups R and M are composed of the following elements: Group R is composed of elements Nd, Pr, La, Ce, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Eu, Sm, Gd, Pm, Tm, Yb, Lu, and Y; and Group M is composed of elements Ti, Ni, Bi, V, Nb, Ta, Cr, Mo, W, Mn, Al, Sb, Ge, Sn, Zr, and Hf. Therefore, to satisfy the relevant claims of the ’368 patent, the IN RE: HITACHI METALS, LTD. 7 compound must at least contain Fe, Co, B, and at least one element from each group R and M. The relevant claims of the ’651 patent are also di- rected toward a crystalline structure, except with the formula of R(Fe,Co)BXAM. Like the relevant claims in the ’368 patent, here the claims also require the presence of at least one element from the R and M groups. However, the relevant claims of the ’651 patent also require at least one element from each X and A groups. Groups X and A consist of the following elements: Group X is composed of elements S, C, P, and Cu; and Group A is composed of elements H, Li, Na, K, Be, Sr, Ba, Ag, Zn, N, F, Se, Te, and Pb. The relevant ’651 patent claims also include one additional element in group M that is not present in the relevant ’368 patent claims’ definition of group M, Si. Thus, to satisfy the relevant claims of the ’651 patent the compound must at least contain Fe, Co, B, and at least one element from each group R, X, A, M; two more elements than is required in the rele- vant ’368 patent claims. In other words, except for the slight variance in group M, the only difference between the relevant claims in the ’368 patent and the ’651 patent is the addition of two elements, one from each of group X and A. Additionally, in construing the relevant ’368 patent claims, we concur with the Board that, because the claims were drafted in the “consisting essentially of” format, the scope of the claims can include those additional elements which do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention as specified in the ’368 patent specification. See Application of Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551 (CCPA 1976) (“[I]n construing the phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ in appellants’ claims, it is necessary and proper to determine whether their specification reasonably supports a construction that would include additives . . . .”). 8 IN RE: HITACHI METALS, LTD. The Board correctly turned its attention to the specification, which explicitly states that various starting materials may include impurities that will be present in the finished product, in determining what elements are included in the claims. For example, the specification states that iron may include carbon, phosphorous, manganese, sulfur, copper, chromium, nickel, copper, and aluminum as impurities, boron may include carbon as an impurity, and neodymium may include fluorine as an impurity. ’368 patent col. 9 ll. 15-27. Furthermore, the specification gives no indication that the starting elements must undergo any treatment to remove said impurities. Additionally, the specification makes clear that the composition claimed in the ’368 patent need not use pure starting elements. For example, the ’368 patent’s specification states that tetragonal systems “are stable when they contain up to 1% of H, Li, Na, K, Be, Sr, Ba, Ag, Zn, N, F, Se, Te, Pb, or the like.” Id. at col. 23 ll. 28-31. It is notable that these elements are not claimed in the ’368 patent, but are instead members of group A as defined by the relevant ’651 patent claims. Thus, we conclude that the Board had a sufficient basis for finding that the relevant ’368 patent claims included carbon, phosphorous, manganese, sulfur, copper, chromium, nickel, copper, and aluminum. We now turn to the second prong of the test for obvi- ousness-type double patenting, determining “whether the differences in subject matter between the two claims render the claims patentably distinct.” Eli Lilly, 251 F.3d at 968. We conclude that the Board properly held that the ’651 claims were obvious variations of the ’368 claims. As discussed above, while the relevant ’368 patent claims do not explicitly include elements from groups X and A, this court construes the claims to include the impurities carbon, phosphorous, copper, and fluorine. Carbon, phosphorous, and copper are all members of the ’651 patent’s X group and fluorine is a member of the ’651 IN RE: HITACHI METALS, LTD. 9 patent’s A group. Thus, the relevant claims of the ’368 patent include at least one claimed compound that would satisfy claim 1 of the ’651 patent, as at least a single element of groups R, X, A, and M are present in the relevant ’368 patent claims’ compounds. In other words, by making, for example, the compound claimed in claim 13 of the ’368 patent, the compound would include not only Fe, Co, B and an element of each group M and R—as required by claim 13—but would also include impurities that are defined as belonging to the ’651 patent claims’ X and A groups. Therefore, as the relevant ’651 patent claims at issue are not patentably distinct from the relevant ’368 patent claims, the claims are invalid. We have reviewed Appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive.