Opinion ID: 549857
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: introduction

Text: 13 Compliance with a restriction requirement means the claims in a divisional application must be consonant with those not elected under that requirement. Noncompliance with the consonance requirement is normally detected by the PTO examiner. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Sec. 804.01 (double patenting protection of Section 121 does not apply where the claims are not consonant with, i.e. have been changed in material respects from, the claims subject to the restriction requirement). Examiners' compliance with MPEP Sec. 804.01 may account for the absence of court decisions on the precise fact pattern before us and the consequent first impression status of the case in this court. 14 We are presented here also with that procedural quirk in the law whereby the nonappealable becomes reviewable and piecemeal litigation becomes permissible. The district court's grant of summary judgment to Lectra was an interlocutory partial judgment not appealable absent certification. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54. The denial of Gerber's motion for summary judgment is interlocutory, nonfinal and nonappealable. Glaros v. H.H. Robertson, 797 F.2d 1564, 1573, 230 USPQ 393, 399 (Fed.Cir.1986), cert. dismissed, 479 U.S. 1072, 107 S.Ct. 1262, 94 L.Ed.2d 124 (1987) (the denial of summary judgment merely establishes that a trial is necessary). 15 The denial of Gerber's alternative request for a preliminary injunction is appealable under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(c)(1), but would normally be incapable of review because the district court expressed no reasons or findings in its support. Pretty Punch Shoppettes, Inc. v. Hauk, 844 F.2d 782, 784, 6 USPQ2d 1563, 1565 (Fed.Cir.1988). In view of the district court's silence, the parties on appeal properly refrained from arguing the four factors involved in the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction. On the apparent but unexpressed assumption that the denial rested on the grant of summary judgment to Lectra, the parties here focus exclusively on the merits of that grant. 16 Forced to the same assumption, i.e., that the court denied the preliminary injunction because its summary judgment of invalidity clearly precluded preliminary relief to Gerber, we review the merits of that summary judgment because it is closely interrelated factually to the preliminary injunction. Intermedics Infusaid, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 804 F.2d 129, 134, 231 USPQ 653, 657 (Fed.Cir.1986). Thus through the magic of Section 1292(c)(1), the unappealable partial judgment to Lectra must be reviewed as though it were appealable, and the result of that review in this case is to affirm the denial of the motion for preliminary injunction. 17 The district court here held that there was no same invention type double patenting because, in its view, one using the structure set forth in claims 15 and 16 would not infringe claim 23 (with its limitation to means for moving the cutter). The court, however, determined that obviousness-type double patenting is present. The latter is a judge-made criterion adopted out of necessity where the courts were faced with a situation in which claims in two applications or patents were not drawn precisely to the same invention, but were drawn to inventions so very much alike as to render one obvious in view of the other and to effectively extend the life of the patent that would have the earlier of the two issue dates. In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 534, 163 USPQ 644, 648 (CCPA 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1038, 90 S.Ct. 1356, 25 L.Ed.2d 649, 165 USPQ 290 (1970). 18 Because we find no error in the grant of summary judgment of invalidity, Gerber necessarily cannot possibly establish a basis for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Gerber's motion for preliminary injunction and deny its request for a remand for consideration of that motion. The Appeal 19 Gerber mounts a dual attack. First, Gerber proffers an argument based on absolutism, i.e., that the third sentence of 35 U.S.C. Sec. 121 absolutely precludes invalidity based on anything in the '492 patent because that patent cannot under any circumstances whatever be used as a reference. Second, Gerber says claims 15 and 16 of the '154 patent are consonant with the claims not elected in its response to the restriction requirement. With admirable candor, Gerber does not challenge the view that obviousness-type double patenting is present if Sec. 121 is rendered inapplicable by nonconsonance of Claims 15 and 16.Section 121 Section 121 provides: 20 If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Commissioner may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 of this title it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as result of such requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. If a divisional application is directed solely to subject matter described and claimed in the original application as filed, the Commissioner may dispense with signing and execution by the inventor. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Commissioner to require the application to be restricted to one invention. 21 In arguing that Section 121's third sentence is a clear, unambiguous, and absolute prohibition against any use of the patent issued on the parent application, Gerber reads that sentence in isolation. The applicable rule of statutory interpretation, however, requires that the third sentence be read in the context of the entire statutory provision. Kelly v. United States, 826 F.2d 1049, 1053 (Fed.Cir.1987). 22 Section 121 provides for restriction when independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application. The prohibition against use of a parent application as a reference against a divisional application applies only to the divisional applications that are filed as a result of a restriction requirement. Plain common sense dictates that a divisional application filed as a result of a restriction requirement may not contain claims drawn to the invention set forth in the claims elected and prosecuted to patent in the parent application. The divisional application must have claims drawn only to the other invention. See Lerner v. Ladd, 216 F.Supp. 81, 84, 136 USPQ 624, 626 (D.D.C.1962) (same invention double patenting). 23 It is true that the disclosure in the patent containing the elected claims cannot be used as a reference on which to reject a claim in a divisional application under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 103, for that disclosure is the applicant's and is not in the prior art. In Re Stempel, 241 F.2d 755, 760, 113 USPQ 77, 81 (CCPA 1957). That is not to say, however, that the elected claims may not be looked to in assessing compliance with the prohibition against claiming the same invention in two patents. 2 In this regard, the phrase obviousness type may have been an unfortunate choice, for, as here, the claims in the divisional application may be actually drawn (though in variant language) to the same invention as that set forth in the elected claims. As discussed below, that phenomenon may be viewed as a failure to keep the claims in the divisional application consonant. 24 Gerber cites language appearing in Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Northern Petrochemical Co., 784 F.2d 351, 228 USPQ 837 (Fed.Cir.), cert. dismissed, 478 U.S. 1028, 106 S.Ct. 3343, 92 L.Ed.2d 763 (1986), where the restriction was between process and catalyst composition claims and the district court invalidated the process patent for same invention type double patenting. Holding that the inventions were not the same, this court reversed, adding:The district court made no findings as to obviousness-type double patenting. We agree with [Studiengesellschaft] that Northern Petrochemical offered no evidence of the scope and content of the pertinent art, other than the '115 patent, the level of skill in the art, or what would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art. Consequently, we hold that obviousness-type double patenting is not involved in this case. 25 Even if Northern Petrochemical had attempted to raise this issue before the district court, the defense of obviousness-type double patenting would not have been available in light of 35 U.S.C. Sec. 121. 26 784 F.2d at 355, 228 USPQ at 840. 27 Gerber's reliance on the last sentence quoted above is unavailing. The court having stated that obviousness-type double patenting was not involved in this case, the quoted last sentence was pure dictum. In Studiengesellschaft, moreover, there was no question that the patentee's claims were consonant with those not elected in responding to the restriction requirement. 28 The remedial purpose of Section 121 is well described in Studiengesellschaft, 784 F.2d at 358-61, 228 USPQ at 842-44 (Newman, J., concurring). To gain the benefits of Section 121 there outlined, however, Gerber must have brought its case within the purview of the statute, i.e., it must have limited the claims in its divisional application to the non-elected invention or inventions. As set out below, Gerber failed to do so. We do not, therefore, disserve any remedial purpose in holding Section 121 inapplicable in this case. Consonance 29 Consonance requires that the line of demarcation between the independent and distinct inventions that prompted the restriction requirement be maintained. Though the claims may be amended, they must not be so amended as to bring them back over the line imposed in the restriction requirement. Where that line is crossed the prohibition of the third sentence of Section 121 does not apply. Cf. In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971) (Section 121's prohibition does not apply where restriction requirement withdrawn because divisional application no longer filed as a result of the restriction). 30 A consonance requirement is consistent with the legislative purpose behind Section 121. See Studiengesellschaft, 784 F.2d at 358-61, 228 USPQ at 842-44 (Newman, J., concurring). Congress could not have intended to deny all inquiry into whether the restriction requirement it established in Section 121 had been disregarded during prosecution of a divisional application. Claims 15 and 16 Are Not Consonant 31 The presence or absence of consonance will necessarily depend upon analysis of the involved claims. As a fall back position from its position that the '492 patent cannot be used for any purpose, Gerber says the district court erred in holding claims 15 and 16 of the '154 patent so like cutting apparatus claim 23 of the '492 patent as to be not consonant with the claims not elected in responding to the restriction requirement. Gerber says that claim 15 is directed to the subcombination of a work holding means in the environment of a machine having a cutting blade. 3 32 That a tool in the form of a cutting blade appears in the preamble of claim 15 is not determinative of whether it is a claim limitation. See Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed.Cir.1989). Where words in the preamble are necessary to give meaning to the claim and properly define the invention, they are deemed limitations of the claim. Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 896, 221 USPQ 669, 675 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857, 105 S.Ct. 187, 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984); see Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 866, 228 USPQ 90, 92 (Fed.Cir.1985). 33 The cutting blade is necessary to give meaning to claims 15 and 16 and properly define the invention. Perkin-Elmer, 732 F.2d at 896, 221 USPQ at 675. The cutting blade appears not only in the preamble, but is referenced repeatedly in the body of the claim. It is integral to the claim itself. Moreover, Gerber's Remarks accompanying a May 7, 1973 amendment referred to the cutting blade as a limitation of claim 15 and relied on the cutting blade penetration of the support means to distinguish the prior art. Hence the cutting blade is not merely an aspect of the claim environment, but an affirmative limitation of claim 15. Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and thus incorporates all the limitations of that claim. 34 In its brief Gerber agrees that the cutting blade may be a claim limitation without which there can be no infringement. It then asserts that the cutting blade is not an element of the subcombination to which the claim is drawn, which is another way of stating its position that the cutting blade is part of the environment. 35 When it made the cutting blade a limitation of claims 15 and 16 Gerber crossed back over the line of demarcation between the cutting apparatus claims and work holding means claims drawn by the examiner in the restriction requirement. Gerber originally included in the divisional/continuing applications (that resulted in the '154 patent) the claims to the work holding means. After numerous amendments, Gerber incorporated as a limitation the cutting blade of elected claim 23 of the '492 patent and thereby rendered claims 15 and 16 non-consonant with those not elected in its response to the restriction requirement.