IN RE VIRGIL W. VOGEL AND PAUL W. VOGEL, 57 C.C.P.A. 920

Summary

Appellants filed a patent application for a process of preparing packaged meat products for prolonged storage. The claims were rejected as involving same invention type double patenting based on appellants' existing patent involving a process for preparing pork for storage. On appeal, the court restated the law of double patenting and reversed the decision in part as to the claim defining a process for beef. This claim was not the same, since beef and pork were different, and did not define merely an obvious variation of the patented invention because there was nothing in the record to indicate that the spoliation characteristics of the two meats were similar. The court affirmed rejection of the other claims pertaining to meat because, while meat and pork may be different, the only limitation in the meat claim was an obvious variation which would not be allowed in the absence of a terminal disclaimer.