{"section":{"filename":"s2190.html","chapter":"2100","section_number":"2190","title":"Prosecution Laches and Res Judicata","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","bytes":67902,"sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57","subsection_count":0,"max_depth":0,"subsections":[]},"quality":"structured","cited_authorities":{"file_section":"2190","cases":[{"key":"case:303f.3d1362","slug":"in-re-bogese","short_name":"In re Bogese","canonical_citation":"In re Bogese, 303 F.3d 1362, 64 USPQ2d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","decision_year":2002,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"An applicant may forfeit the right to a patent under the doctrine of prosecution laches for unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution, as where twelve continuation applications were filed over eight years without substantively advancing prosecution when required; the doctrine applies only in egregious cases.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["forfeiture of patent right via prosecution laches for undue, unexplained delay"]},{"key":"case:998f.3d1347","slug":"hyatt-v-hirshfeld","short_name":"Hyatt v. Hirshfeld","canonical_citation":"Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, 998 F.3d 1347, 2021 USPQ2d 591 (Fed. Cir. 2021)","decision_year":2021,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Prosecution laches may be asserted to deny a patent for unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution, applying in egregious cases such as patterns of repetitive filings that unjustifiably delay prosecution.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["prosecution laches available against PTO in district-court 145 action"]},{"key":"case:422f.3d1378","slug":"symbol-tech-inc-v-lemelson-med-educ-research-found","short_name":"Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found.","canonical_citation":"Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found., 422 F.3d 1378, 76 USPQ2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","decision_year":2005,"court":"Fed. Cir.","holding_summary":"Prosecution history laches applies only in egregious cases of unreasonable and unexplained delay, such as multiple repetitive refilings demonstrating a pattern of unjustifiably delayed prosecution for the business purpose of postponing issuance of allowed claims.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["laches triggered by pattern of repetitive filings causing unjustified delay"]},{"key":"case:342f.2d80","slug":"in-re-hitchings","short_name":"In re Hitchings","canonical_citation":"In re Hitchings, 342 F.2d 80, 144 USPQ 637 (CCPA 1965)","decision_year":1965,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Unappealed rejections by examiners have no res judicata preclusive effect; only final decisions of the Board or reviewing courts can support a res judicata rejection. A specification's statement of utility that connotes how to use the invention can satisfy the how-to-use requirement.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["unappealed examiner rejections have no res judicata preclusive effect"]},{"key":"case:168f.2d121","slug":"edgerton-v-kingsland","short_name":"Edgerton v. Kingsland","canonical_citation":"Edgerton v. Kingsland, 168 F.2d 121, 75 USPQ 307 (D.C. Cir. 1947)","decision_year":1947,"court":"D.C. Cir.","holding_summary":"A rejection on the ground of res judicata is properly sustained where it is based on a prior adjudication against the inventor on the same claim, a patentably indistinct claim, or a claim involving the same issue.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["res judicata sustained on prior adjudication against the inventor"]},{"key":"case:467f.2d939","slug":"in-re-katz","short_name":"In re Katz","canonical_citation":"In re Katz, 467 F.2d 939, 167 USPQ 487 (CCPA 1970)","decision_year":1970,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"A res judicata rejection may be sustained based on a prior adjudication against the inventor by a district court on the same claim, a patentably nondistinct claim, or a claim involving the same issue.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["res judicata sustained based on prior district court decision"]},{"key":"case:312f.2d930","slug":"in-re-fried","short_name":"In re Fried","canonical_citation":"In re Fried, 312 F.2d 930, 136 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1963)","decision_year":1963,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Res judicata does not apply against an applicant where, under the governing definition, the prior Board decision was not a \"final\" decision.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["res judicata reversed; turned on definition of 'final' Board decision"]},{"key":"case:371f.2d1022","slug":"in-re-hellbaum","short_name":"In re Hellbaum","canonical_citation":"In re Hellbaum, 371 F.2d 1022, 152 USPQ 571 (CCPA 1967)","decision_year":1967,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Res judicata does not apply where the previously adjudicated claims and the current claims are too different to satisfy the identity-of-issues element.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["res judicata reversed; claims too different for identity-of-issues element"]},{"key":"case:377f.2d610","slug":"in-re-herr","short_name":"In re Herr","canonical_citation":"In re Herr, 377 F.2d 610, 153 USPQ 548 (CCPA 1967)","decision_year":1967,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Res judicata does not apply, despite similarities between previously adjudicated and current claims, where the applicant provides new evidence of patentability.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["res judicata reversed; applicant provided new evidence of patentability"]},{"key":"case:387f.2d398","slug":"in-re-kaghan","short_name":"In re Kaghan","canonical_citation":"In re Kaghan, 387 F.2d 398, 156 USPQ 130 (CCPA 1967)","decision_year":1967,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Res judicata does not apply to a subsequent application where the earlier Board decision was not \"final\" as defined in the version of Office guidance then in effect.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["res judicata reversed; turned on definition of 'final' Board decision"]},{"key":"case:411f.2d1333","slug":"in-re-craig","short_name":"In re Craig","canonical_citation":"In re Craig, 411 F.2d 1333, 162 USPQ 157 (CCPA 1969)","decision_year":1969,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Res judicata does not apply where the previously adjudicated claims and the current claims are too different to satisfy the identity-of-issues element.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["res judicata reversed; claims too different for identity-of-issues element"]},{"key":"case:427f.2d833","slug":"in-re-fisher-1970","short_name":"In re Fisher","canonical_citation":"In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 166 USPQ 18 (CCPA 1970)","decision_year":1970,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Enablement is satisfied if the specification discloses at least one method of making and using the claimed invention bearing a reasonable correlation to the entire claim scope; the guidance required is inversely related to the predictability of the art.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["res judicata reversed; claims too different for identity-of-issues element"]},{"key":"case:439f.2d1228","slug":"in-re-russell","short_name":"In re Russell","canonical_citation":"In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)","decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Res judicata does not bar prosecution of claims similar to previously adjudicated ones where the applicant provides new evidence of patentability.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["res judicata reversed; applicant provided new evidence of patentability"]},{"key":"case:444f.2d1172","slug":"in-re-ackermann","short_name":"In re Ackermann","canonical_citation":"In re Ackermann, 444 F.2d 1172, 170 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1971)","decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA","holding_summary":"Res judicata does not apply where the previously adjudicated claims and the current claims are too different to satisfy the identity-of-issues element.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["res judicata reversed; claims too different for identity-of-issues element"]},{"key":"case:484f.2d837","slug":"plastic-contact-lens-co-v-gottschalk","short_name":"Plastic Contact Lens Co. v. Gottschalk","canonical_citation":"Plastic Contact Lens Co. v. Gottschalk, 484 F.2d 837, 179 USPQ 262 (D.C. Cir. 1973)","decision_year":1973,"court":"D.C. Cir.","holding_summary":"Res judicata does not apply where the prior Board decision was not \"final\" within the meaning of the definition of a final Board decision found in an older version of the governing examination guidance.","holding_confidence":"high","mentions":1,"propositions":["res judicata reversed; turned on definition of 'final' Board decision"]}],"statutes":[{"key":"us_cfr:37:42.73","slug":"37-cfr-42-73","canonical_citation":"37 CFR 42.73(d)(3)","mentions":1},{"key":"us_usc:35:102","slug":"35-usc-102","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102","mentions":1},{"key":"us_usc:35:103","slug":"35-usc-103","canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 103","mentions":1}],"cross_references":[],"form_paragraphs":[]},"structured_data":{"nodes":[{"id":"pb_c5lvg37r","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_c5lvg37r","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b id=\"\">I.</b><b id=\"\"> PROSECUTION LACHES</b>","rendered_text_plain":"I. PROSECUTION LACHES","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e220656/b.0","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"I. PROSECUTION LACHES"},{"id":"pb_6tzayu23","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_6tzayu23","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e220660\">The Federal Circuit affirmed a rejection of claims in a patent application on the ground that applicant had forfeited his right to a patent under the doctrine of prosecution history laches for unreasonable and undue delay in prosecution. <i>In re Bogese,</i> 303 F.3d 1362, 1369, 64 USPQ2d 1448, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Applicant “filed twelve continuation applications over an eight-year period and did not substantively advance prosecution when required and given an opportunity to do so by the PTO.”). See also <i>Hyatt v. Hirshfeld,</i> 998 F.3d 1347, 2021 USPQ2d 591 (Fed. Cir. 2021). While there are no firm guidelines for determining when laches is triggered, it applies only in egregious cases of unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution. For example, where there are “multiple examples of repetitive filings that demonstrate a pattern of unjustified delayed prosecution,” laches may be triggered. <i>Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., &amp; Research Found.,</i> 422 F.3d 1378, 1385, 76 USPQ2d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(Court discussed difference between legitimate reasons for refiling patent applications and refilings for the business purpose of delaying the issuance of previously allowed claims.). An examiner should obtain approval from the TC Director before making a rejection on the grounds of prosecution history laches.</p>","rendered_text_plain":"The Federal Circuit affirmed a rejection of claims in a patent application on the ground that applicant had forfeited his right to a patent under the doctrine of prosecution history laches for unreasonable and undue delay in prosecution. In re Bogese, 303 F.3d 1362, 1369, 64 USPQ2d 1448, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Applicant “filed twelve continuation applications over an eight-year period and did not substantively advance prosecution when required and given an opportunity to do so by the PTO.”). See also Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, 998 F.3d 1347, 2021 USPQ2d 591 (Fed. Cir. 2021). While there are no firm guidelines for determining when laches is triggered, it applies only in egregious cases of unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution. For example, where there are “multiple examples of repetitive filings that demonstrate a pattern of unjustified delayed prosecution,” laches may be triggered. Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found., 422 F.3d 1378, 1385, 76 USPQ2d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(Court discussed difference between legitimate reasons for refiling patent applications and refilings for the business purpose of delaying the issuance of previously allowed claims.). An examiner should obtain approval from the TC Director before making a rejection on the grounds of prosecution history laches.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e220660","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_ujfd5hvv","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ujfd5hvv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<b id=\"\">II.</b><b id=\"\"> RES JUDICATA</b>","rendered_text_plain":"II. RES JUDICATA","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e220656/b.2","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"informal_heading","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w","heading_level":2,"heading_text":"II. RES JUDICATA"},{"id":"pb_hd2rijh6","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_hd2rijh6","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e68640\">A patent owner or applicant may be precluded from seeking a claim that is not patentably distinct from a claim that was finally refused or canceled during an administrative trial or federal court proceeding under the doctrine of <i>res judicata.</i> Similarly, a patent owner may be precluded from seeking an amendment of a specification or drawing that was denied entry during a trial if the application or patent for which the amendment is sought has the same written description as the patent or application that was the subject of the administrative trial or federal court proceeding. See <b><a href=\"mpep-9020-appx-r.html#ar_d1d8bb_2c8a7_20a\">37 CFR 42.73(d)(3)</a></b>.</p>","rendered_text_plain":"A patent owner or applicant may be precluded from seeking a claim that is not patentably distinct from a claim that was finally refused or canceled during an administrative trial or federal court proceeding under the doctrine of res judicata. Similarly, a patent owner may be precluded from seeking an amendment of a specification or drawing that was denied entry during a trial if the application or patent for which the amendment is sought has the same written description as the patent or application that was the subject of the administrative trial or federal court proceeding. See 37 CFR 42.73(d)(3).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68640","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_h4bijboo","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_h4bijboo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"ch2100_p_30e12_1eabd_1d7\">A patent owner or applicant may be precluded from seeking a claim that is not patentably distinct from a claim that was previously rejected if the rejection was affirmed on appeal and the decision on appeal became final. A <i>res judicata</i> rejection should be applied only when the earlier decision was a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (or its predecessor Board) or any one of the reviewing courts and when there is no opportunity for further court review of the earlier decision. See <i>In re Hitchings,</i> 342 F.2d 80, 85, 144 USPQ 637, 641 (CCPA 1965) (holding that unappealed rejections from examiners cannot have a preclusive effect).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"A patent owner or applicant may be precluded from seeking a claim that is not patentably distinct from a claim that was previously rejected if the rejection was affirmed on appeal and the decision on appeal became final. A res judicata rejection should be applied only when the earlier decision was a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (or its predecessor Board) or any one of the reviewing courts and when there is no opportunity for further court review of the earlier decision. See In re Hitchings, 342 F.2d 80, 85, 144 USPQ 637, 641 (CCPA 1965) (holding that unappealed rejections from examiners cannot have a preclusive effect).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_30e12_1eabd_1d7","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_af3svcng","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_af3svcng","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e68646\">When making a rejection on <i> res judicata,</i> any prior art rejection under <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1fbe1_234ed_52\">35 U.S.C. 102</a></b> or <b><a href=\"mpep-9015-appx-l.html#al_d1fbe1_19797_b0\">35 U.S.C. 103</a></b> should ordinarily be made on the basis of the same prior art, especially in continuing applications. In most situations, the same prior art which was relied upon in the earlier decision would again be applicable.</p>","rendered_text_plain":"When making a rejection on res judicata, any prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 should ordinarily be made on the basis of the same prior art, especially in continuing applications. In most situations, the same prior art which was relied upon in the earlier decision would again be applicable.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68646","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_q5izq5zn","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_q5izq5zn","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e68652\">In the following cases, a rejection of a claim based on the ground of <i>res judicata</i> was sustained where it was based on a prior adjudication, against the inventor, on the same claim, a patentably nondistinct claim, or a claim involving the same issue.</p>","rendered_text_plain":"In the following cases, a rejection of a claim based on the ground of res judicata was sustained where it was based on a prior adjudication, against the inventor, on the same claim, a patentably nondistinct claim, or a claim involving the same issue.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68652","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_njcdfpzy","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_njcdfpzy","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e68658\"><i>Edgerton v. Kingsland,</i> 168 F. 2d 121, 75 USPQ 307 (D.C. Cir. 1947).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"Edgerton v. Kingsland, 168 F. 2d 121, 75 USPQ 307 (D.C. Cir. 1947).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68658","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_rkmcreh2","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_rkmcreh2","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e68668\"><i>In re Katz,</i> 467 F.2d 939, 167 USPQ 487 (CCPA 1970) (prior decision by a district court).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"In re Katz, 467 F.2d 939, 167 USPQ 487 (CCPA 1970) (prior decision by a district court).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68668","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_3xusii4o","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_3xusii4o","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e68678\">In the following cases, <i>res judicata</i> rejections were reversed for various reasons.</p>","rendered_text_plain":"In the following cases, res judicata rejections were reversed for various reasons.","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68678","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_qhvollaf","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_qhvollaf","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e68684\"><i>In re Fried,</i> 312 F.2d 930, 136 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1963) (<i>res judicata</i> not applicable based on the definition of a “final” Board decision found in an older version of the MPEP).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"In re Fried, 312 F.2d 930, 136 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1963) (res judicata not applicable based on the definition of a “final” Board decision found in an older version of the MPEP).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68684","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_odbw55mo","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_odbw55mo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e68689\"><i>In re Hellbaum,</i> 371 F.2d 1022, 152 USPQ 571 (CCPA 1967) (<i>res judicata</i> not applicable because the previously adjudicated and current claims were too different to satisfy the “identity of issues” element of <i>res judicata</i>).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"In re Hellbaum, 371 F.2d 1022, 152 USPQ 571 (CCPA 1967) (res judicata not applicable because the previously adjudicated and current claims were too different to satisfy the “identity of issues” element of res judicata).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68689","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_iod2ivu7","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_iod2ivu7","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e68699\"><i>In re Herr,</i> 377 F.2d 610, 153 USPQ 548 (CCPA 1967) (<i>res judicata</i> not applicable despite similarities between previously adjudicated and current claims because applicant provided new evidence of patentability).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"In re Herr, 377 F.2d 610, 153 USPQ 548 (CCPA 1967) (res judicata not applicable despite similarities between previously adjudicated and current claims because applicant provided new evidence of patentability).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68699","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_rn6r45pg","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_rn6r45pg","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e68704\"><i>In re Kaghan,</i> 387 F.2d 398, 156 USPQ 130 (CCPA 1967) (<i>res judicata</i> not applicable based on the definition of a “final” Board decision found in an older version of the MPEP).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"In re Kaghan, 387 F.2d 398, 156 USPQ 130 (CCPA 1967) (res judicata not applicable based on the definition of a “final” Board decision found in an older version of the MPEP).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68704","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_tkbjihlx","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_tkbjihlx","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e68709\"><i>In re Craig,</i> 411 F.2d 1333, 162 USPQ 157 (CCPA 1969) (<i>res judicata</i> not applicable because the previously adjudicated and current claims were too different to satisfy the “identity of issues” element of <i>res judicata</i>).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"In re Craig, 411 F.2d 1333, 162 USPQ 157 (CCPA 1969) (res judicata not applicable because the previously adjudicated and current claims were too different to satisfy the “identity of issues” element of res judicata).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68709","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_r2eqmbxo","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_r2eqmbxo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e68714\"><i>In re Fisher,</i> 427 F.2d 833, 166 USPQ 18 (CCPA 1970) (<i>res judicata</i> not applicable because the previously adjudicated and current claims were too different to satisfy the “identity of issues” element of <i>res judicata</i>).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 166 USPQ 18 (CCPA 1970) (res judicata not applicable because the previously adjudicated and current claims were too different to satisfy the “identity of issues” element of res judicata).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68714","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_mpem2mf4","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_mpem2mf4","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e68719\"><i>In re Russell,</i> 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971) (<i>res judicata</i> not applicable despite similarities between previously adjudicated and current claims because applicant provided new evidence of patentability).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971) (res judicata not applicable despite similarities between previously adjudicated and current claims because applicant provided new evidence of patentability).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68719","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_ha6kz66w","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ha6kz66w","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e68724\"><i>In re Ackermann,</i> 444 F.2d 1172, 170 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1971) (<i>res judicata</i> not applicable because the previously adjudicated and current claims were too different to satisfy the “identity of issues” element of <i>res judicata</i>).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"In re Ackermann, 444 F.2d 1172, 170 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1971) (res judicata not applicable because the previously adjudicated and current claims were too different to satisfy the “identity of issues” element of res judicata).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68724","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"pb_ub6wdzne","node_type":"prose_block","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/pb_ub6wdzne","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"<p id=\"d0e68729\"><i>Plastic Contact Lens Co. v. Gottschalk,</i> 484 F.2d 837, 179 USPQ 262 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (<i>res judicata</i> not applicable based on the definition of a “final” Board decision found in an older version of the MPEP).</p>","rendered_text_plain":"Plastic Contact Lens Co. v. Gottschalk, 484 F.2d 837, 179 USPQ 262 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (res judicata not applicable based on the definition of a “final” Board decision found in an older version of the MPEP).","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68729","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"kind":"narrative","host_section_id":"se_pvsnbq7w"},{"id":"cs_epyxicih","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_epyxicih","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Bogese, 303 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"short_name":"In re Bogese","canonical_citation":"In re Bogese, 303 F.3d 1362, 64 USPQ2d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","all_citations":["303 F.3d 1362","64 USPQ2d 1448"],"decision_year":2002,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_hzlosz6t","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_hzlosz6t","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, 998 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2021)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"short_name":"Hyatt v. Hirshfeld","canonical_citation":"Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, 998 F.3d 1347, 2021 USPQ2d 591 (Fed. Cir. 2021)","all_citations":["998 F.3d 1347","2021 USPQ2d 591"],"decision_year":2021,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_56trdhil","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_56trdhil","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found., 422 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"short_name":"Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found.","canonical_citation":"Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found., 422 F.3d 1378, 76 USPQ2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","all_citations":["422 F.3d 1378","76 USPQ2d 1354"],"decision_year":2005,"court":"Fed. Cir."},{"id":"cs_cphdlpsv","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_cphdlpsv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Hitchings, 342 F.2d 80 (CCPA 1965)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"short_name":"In re Hitchings","canonical_citation":"In re Hitchings, 342 F.2d 80, 144 USPQ 637 (CCPA 1965)","all_citations":["342 F.2d 80","144 USPQ 637"],"decision_year":1965,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_vccouoix","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_vccouoix","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Edgerton v. Kingsland, 168 F.2d 121 (D.C. Cir. 1947)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"short_name":"Edgerton v. Kingsland","canonical_citation":"Edgerton v. Kingsland, 168 F.2d 121, 75 USPQ 307 (D.C. Cir. 1947)","all_citations":["168 F.2d 121","75 USPQ 307"],"decision_year":1947,"court":"D.C. Cir."},{"id":"cs_uopqrxnz","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_uopqrxnz","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Katz, 467 F.2d 939 (CCPA 1970)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"short_name":"In re Katz","canonical_citation":"In re Katz, 467 F.2d 939, 167 USPQ 487 (CCPA 1970)","all_citations":["467 F.2d 939","167 USPQ 487"],"decision_year":1970,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_l5jtb3ez","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_l5jtb3ez","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Fried, 312 F.2d 930 (CCPA 1963)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"short_name":"In re Fried","canonical_citation":"In re Fried, 312 F.2d 930, 136 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1963)","all_citations":["312 F.2d 930","136 USPQ 429"],"decision_year":1963,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_xrkmyslo","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_xrkmyslo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Hellbaum, 371 F.2d 1022 (CCPA 1967)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"short_name":"In re Hellbaum","canonical_citation":"In re Hellbaum, 371 F.2d 1022, 152 USPQ 571 (CCPA 1967)","all_citations":["371 F.2d 1022","152 USPQ 571"],"decision_year":1967,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_xfgkknsa","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_xfgkknsa","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Herr, 377 F.2d 610 (CCPA 1967)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"short_name":"In re Herr","canonical_citation":"In re Herr, 377 F.2d 610, 153 USPQ 548 (CCPA 1967)","all_citations":["377 F.2d 610","153 USPQ 548"],"decision_year":1967,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_acbctamo","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_acbctamo","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Kaghan, 387 F.2d 398 (CCPA 1967)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"short_name":"In re Kaghan","canonical_citation":"In re Kaghan, 387 F.2d 398, 156 USPQ 130 (CCPA 1967)","all_citations":["387 F.2d 398","156 USPQ 130"],"decision_year":1967,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_c5sq2dth","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_c5sq2dth","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Craig, 411 F.2d 1333 (CCPA 1969)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"short_name":"In re Craig","canonical_citation":"In re Craig, 411 F.2d 1333, 162 USPQ 157 (CCPA 1969)","all_citations":["411 F.2d 1333","162 USPQ 157"],"decision_year":1969,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_lkpgxejp","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_lkpgxejp","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833 (CCPA 1970)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"short_name":"In re Fisher","canonical_citation":"In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 166 USPQ 18 (CCPA 1970)","all_citations":["427 F.2d 833","166 USPQ 18"],"decision_year":1970,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_kd7nds36","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_kd7nds36","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228 (CCPA 1971)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"short_name":"In re Russell","canonical_citation":"In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)","all_citations":["439 F.2d 1228","169 USPQ 426"],"decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_i6dt74n5","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_i6dt74n5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"In re Ackermann, 444 F.2d 1172 (CCPA 1971)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"short_name":"In re Ackermann","canonical_citation":"In re Ackermann, 444 F.2d 1172, 170 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1971)","all_citations":["444 F.2d 1172","170 USPQ 340"],"decision_year":1971,"court":"CCPA"},{"id":"cs_cydtk7ek","node_type":"case","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/cs_cydtk7ek","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"Plastic Contact Lens Co. v. Gottschalk, 484 F.2d 837 (D.C. Cir. 1973)","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"short_name":"Plastic Contact Lens Co. v. Gottschalk","canonical_citation":"Plastic Contact Lens Co. v. Gottschalk, 484 F.2d 837, 179 USPQ 262 (D.C. Cir. 1973)","all_citations":["484 F.2d 837","179 USPQ 262"],"decision_year":1973,"court":"D.C. Cir."},{"id":"st_zeowl56g","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_zeowl56g","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"authority":"us_cfr","authority_title_num":"37","authority_section_num":"42.73","subsection_path":["d","3"],"canonical_citation":"37 CFR 42.73(d)(3)"},{"id":"st_wrfmgtn5","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_wrfmgtn5","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"102","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 102"},{"id":"st_ompe7akv","node_type":"statute","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/st_ompe7akv","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"authority":"us_usc","authority_title_num":"35","authority_section_num":"103","subsection_path":[],"canonical_citation":"35 U.S.C. 103"},{"id":"se_pvsnbq7w","node_type":"section","corpus_id":"mpep-e9r01-2024-html","opaque_url":"https://mpep.io/n/se_pvsnbq7w","effective_range":{"start_revision":"R-07.2022","end_revision":null},"rendered_text_html":"","rendered_text_plain":"","provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e220656","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"},"akn_urn":"/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2190","canonical_url":"https://mpep.io/akn/us/statement/manual/uspto/2024/mpep/eng@2024-02-29!sec_2190","section_number":"2190","chapter":"2100","depth":0,"title":"Prosecution Laches and Res Judicata","revision_tag":"R-07.2022","children_ids":["pb_c5lvg37r","pb_6tzayu23","pb_ujfd5hvv","pb_hd2rijh6","pb_h4bijboo","pb_af3svcng","pb_q5izq5zn","pb_njcdfpzy","pb_rkmcreh2","pb_3xusii4o","pb_qhvollaf","pb_odbw55mo","pb_iod2ivu7","pb_rn6r45pg","pb_tkbjihlx","pb_r2eqmbxo","pb_mpem2mf4","pb_ha6kz66w","pb_ub6wdzne"]}],"edges":[{"id":"e_nxadirap","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_6tzayu23","target_id":"cs_epyxicih","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Bogese, 303 F.3d 1362, 1369, 64 USPQ2d 1448, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 2002)","source_offset":{"start":238,"end":250},"pincite":"1369","proposition":"forfeiture of patent right via prosecution laches for undue, unexplained delay"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e220660","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_hwrh3xbm","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_6tzayu23","target_id":"cs_hzlosz6t","properties":{"citation_text":"Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, 998 F.3d 1347, 2021 USPQ2d 591 (Fed. Cir. 2021)","source_offset":{"start":506,"end":524},"signal":"see_also","proposition":"prosecution laches available against PTO in district-court 145 action"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e220660","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_yucbyub4","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_6tzayu23","target_id":"cs_56trdhil","properties":{"citation_text":"Symbol Tech. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ., & Research Found., 422 F.3d 1378, 1385, 76 USPQ2d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2005)","source_offset":{"start":900,"end":960},"pincite":"1385","proposition":"laches triggered by pattern of repetitive filings causing unjustified delay"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e220660","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_3xpxa25d","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_hd2rijh6","target_id":"st_zeowl56g","properties":{"citation_text":"37 CFR 42.73(d)(3)","specificity":"paragraph","source_offset":{"start":586,"end":604}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68640","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_3xfmt2jy","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_h4bijboo","target_id":"cs_cphdlpsv","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Hitchings, 342 F.2d 80, 85, 144 USPQ 637, 641 (CCPA 1965)","source_offset":{"start":496,"end":511},"pincite":"85","proposition":"unappealed examiner rejections have no res judicata preclusive effect"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"ch2100_p_30e12_1eabd_1d7","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_cu5mw3p2","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_af3svcng","target_id":"st_wrfmgtn5","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 102","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":71,"end":84}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68646","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_4brstwvf","edge_type":"cites-statute","source_id":"pb_af3svcng","target_id":"st_ompe7akv","properties":{"citation_text":"35 U.S.C. 103","specificity":"section","source_offset":{"start":88,"end":101}},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68646","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_zghsxdds","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_njcdfpzy","target_id":"cs_vccouoix","properties":{"citation_text":"Edgerton v. Kingsland, 168 F.2d 121, 75 USPQ 307 (D.C. Cir. 1947)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":21},"proposition":"res judicata sustained on prior adjudication against the inventor"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68658","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_3strogba","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_rkmcreh2","target_id":"cs_uopqrxnz","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Katz, 467 F.2d 939, 167 USPQ 487 (CCPA 1970)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":10},"proposition":"res judicata sustained based on prior district court decision"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68668","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_arfvtgl2","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_qhvollaf","target_id":"cs_l5jtb3ez","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Fried, 312 F.2d 930, 136 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1963)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":11},"proposition":"res judicata reversed; turned on definition of 'final' Board decision"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68684","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_wk4kpsxl","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_odbw55mo","target_id":"cs_xrkmyslo","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Hellbaum, 371 F.2d 1022, 152 USPQ 571 (CCPA 1967)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":14},"proposition":"res judicata reversed; claims too different for identity-of-issues element"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68689","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_wwkig4jk","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_iod2ivu7","target_id":"cs_xfgkknsa","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Herr, 377 F.2d 610, 153 USPQ 548 (CCPA 1967)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":10},"proposition":"res judicata reversed; applicant provided new evidence of patentability"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68699","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_iggbvzs6","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_rn6r45pg","target_id":"cs_acbctamo","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Kaghan, 387 F.2d 398, 156 USPQ 130 (CCPA 1967)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":12},"proposition":"res judicata reversed; turned on definition of 'final' Board decision"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68704","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_wymexgi3","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_tkbjihlx","target_id":"cs_c5sq2dth","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Craig, 411 F.2d 1333, 162 USPQ 157 (CCPA 1969)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":11},"proposition":"res judicata reversed; claims too different for identity-of-issues element"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68709","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_zrwlahvc","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_r2eqmbxo","target_id":"cs_lkpgxejp","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 166 USPQ 18 (CCPA 1970)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":12},"proposition":"res judicata reversed; claims too different for identity-of-issues element"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68714","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_vm6nfwjb","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_mpem2mf4","target_id":"cs_kd7nds36","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1971)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":13},"proposition":"res judicata reversed; applicant provided new evidence of patentability"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68719","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_gokv63by","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ha6kz66w","target_id":"cs_i6dt74n5","properties":{"citation_text":"In re Ackermann, 444 F.2d 1172, 170 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1971)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":15},"proposition":"res judicata reversed; claims too different for identity-of-issues element"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68724","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}},{"id":"e_5gai262l","edge_type":"cites-case","source_id":"pb_ub6wdzne","target_id":"cs_cydtk7ek","properties":{"citation_text":"Plastic Contact Lens Co. v. Gottschalk, 484 F.2d 837, 179 USPQ 262 (D.C. Cir. 1973)","source_offset":{"start":0,"end":38},"proposition":"res judicata reversed; turned on definition of 'final' Board decision"},"provenance":{"source_file":"s2190.html","source_anchor":"d0e68729","source_sha256":"78443ec7e38933333e63057c2d7fdd6805a39fdf0965cfe05e41dc7d5ad7ed57"}}]}}