Judge Newman strikes back in "In re Hubbell"
There is an interesting "errata" that appeared:
Please insert the following in the dissenting opinion
footnote at page 4, line 18, after “(4th ed. 1979)”:
1 The panel majority’s footnote 4 criticizes
this citation to an earlier version of the
MPEP that defined “inventive entity”; however,
this has always been the definition of
“inventive entity,” extensively embodied in
judicial opinions, e.g., Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc.
v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc., 606 F.3d
1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and as used in
the current MPEP §804 (8th ed. 2012). I also
remark on the panel majority’s ruling that
“inventive entity” in double patenting law
depends on the relative contribution of the
joint inventors. Maj. Op. at 13. That theory
is devoid of foundation.
Please re-number footnote 1 on page 7, line 28, as footnote