Studiengesellschaft Kohle Mbh, as Trustee for the Max-Planck-Institut Fur Kohlenforschung v. Northern Petrochemical Company

I share the court’s opinion that the ’115 catalyst patent and the ’698 process patent do not claim the same invention, as this court and our predecessor court have defined “same invention”, and thus that “same invention double patenting” does not lie. I believe, however, that 35 U.S.C. § 1211 controls the result in this case, *358wherein the application for the ’698 patent was filed as result of a restriction requirement imposed by the Commissioner. Under these circumstances, the legal and policy arguments raised by Northern Petrochemical are not controlling of the issue: these arguments were…