Court Opinion

ID: 9452200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:32:52.5861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:06.638055
License: Public Domain

MARTIN, Judge
(concurring).
As I review the record here, this case is one falling within the principles of In re Robeson, 331 F.2d 610, 51 CCPA 1271, and In re Kaye, 332 F.2d 816, 51 CCPA 1465. I concur in the result reached here solely on the ground that the terminal disclaimers should be given effect, and that they obviate any rejection for double patenting of the obviousness type. I agree with the portion of the majority opinion that holds the inventions here involved are not the same. Compare In re Siu, 222 F.2d 267, 42 CCPA 864.