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) specifically provide a basis for overcoming certain interferences between claims from different patents if they share a common inventor and the patents are owned by a common entity. However, when it comes to double patenting rejections, this provision does not apply in any capacity.

Double patenting rejections exist to prevent an applicant from obtaining two patents for the same invention with the intent of extending the patent term beyond what is allowed by the patent system. These rejections can take a statutory form, where two patents claim the same invention, or a nonstatutory form, where the claims are directed to obvious variants of each other.

Under the current patent law provisions, double patenting rejections cannot be overcome by any assertion of common ownership or the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). Thus, the statement that these provisions cannot be used to address any form of double patenting rejection is accurate.