Court Opinion

ID: 9453774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:23:33.546985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:47.894744
License: Public Domain

ALMOND, Judge
(concurring).
As the above opinion points out, the patent claim, by virtue of the disclosure and the “comprising” language, covers a combination ABCXY. The application before us claims subcombination ABCY. The above opinion finds an extension of monopoly.
In In re Heinle, 342 F.2d 1001, 52 CCPA 1164, a patent had issued containing a claim to combination ABCDE. An application was filed claiming element E, and the majority found no extension of monopoly.
I find the facts here indistinguishable from those in Heinle, and concur in the result because it is consistent with my dissent in In re Allen, 343 F.2d 482, 52 CCPA 1315, and my concurrence in In re Heinle.