What is consonance in the context of restriction requirements and double patenting?
Consonance, in the context of restriction requirements and double patenting, refers to maintaining the line of demarcation between independent and distinct inventions that prompted the original restriction requirement. The MPEP cites Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC to explain:
“Section 121 shields claims against a double patenting challenge if consonance exists between the divided groups of claims and an earlier restriction requirement. If a restriction requirement does not clearly set forth the line of demarcation, then challenged claims could not satisfy the consonance requirement.”
Furthermore, the MPEP quotes Symbol Techs, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc. to clarify:
“Consonance requires that the line of demarcation between the ‘independent and distinct inventions’ that prompted the restriction requirement be maintained … Where that line is crossed the prohibition -[against double patenting in] the third sentence of Section 121 does not apply.”
Maintaining consonance is crucial for invoking the protection of 35 U.S.C. 121 against double patenting rejections in divisional applications.
To learn more: