are related to, or are directed to the same embodiment as in the original application. The PTO’s approach is, moreover, unmanageable. Every claim must, by definition, be different in scope than the other claims of the patent, and it is difficult to distinguish one patent embodiment from another or to determine when a later claim is related to an earlier claim. A rule requiring that the new claims be related to the previously submitted claims, or be directed to the same embodiment, would be difficult to administer in a consistent and predictable way. In short, this panel is bound by Doll. See S. Corp. v. United States, 690 F.2d 1368, 1370 (Fed.Cir.1982) (en banc) (adopting the decisions of the CCPA as binding precedent); In re Am. Fertility Soc’y, 188 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). If the PTO believes we should overrule Doll,
holding that an earlier precedential decision is binding precedent on later panels recognizing that a prior panels holding is binding on all subsequent panels holding that where a statement is merely a prelude to another legal issue that commands the panels full attention it is not binding on later panels holding that a prior panel decision is binding on subsequent panels holding that decisions by prior panels are binding