Rho Co. v. Department of Revenue

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming the rejection of genus claims in a later patent application for obviousness-type double patenting in light of species claims in an earlier patent
• performing the first step in the analysis only implicitly, and focusing instead on the question of what test applied to the determination of whether the claims of the two patents were “patentably distinct”
• the one-way test applies where the applicant could have filed both sets of claims in one application
• under a one-way test, “[i]f the application claim is not patentably distinct,” it cannot overcome a double-patenting rejection in the absence of a terminal disclaimer
• “The invention described in claim 1 of the ’916 patent ... is anything but ‘totally separate’ from that of the Berg application,” where “the specifications of the Berg application and of the ’916 patent are identical; the two disclosures are almost exactly alike”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).