Can the common ownership provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) be applied to overcome a double patenting rejection?

The common ownership provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) state that if the same entity owns both patents, certain prior art patents may not be considered to create a double patenting rejection. This means that when two patents owned by the same entity cover overlapping claims, the common ownership can indeed mitigate issues related to double patenting, specifically for statutory rejections.

However, in the context of double patenting, the primary focus is on the type of rejection being considered. Nonstatutory double patenting rejections arise when there are overlapping inventions or claims that are not strictly based on the prior art. The common ownership provisions do not apply in these situations because nonstatutory rejections are rooted in the notion of satisfying the non-obviousness requirement, which isn't influenced by ownership status. Therefore, the correct interpretation of the law is that the common ownership provisions cannot be utilized to overcome any double patenting rejection, as they don't hold relevance in the context of nonstatutory rejections.