Monday August 9, 2010

REVERSED

1600 Biotechnology and Organic ChemistryEx Parte Chaiken et al 10/969,439 ADAMS 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Examiner Name: NEGIN, RUSSELL SCOTT

3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Arbogast et al 09/893,535 LORIN 102(e)/103(a) STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP Examiner Name: COBANOGLU, DILEK B

Ex Parte Koether 09/946,461 LORIN 103(a) EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP Examiner Name: ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

Ex Parte McManamy et al 11/221,338 HORNER 103(a) COHEN & GRIGSBY, P.C. Examiner Name: TRETTEL, MICHAEL

Ex Parte Struble 09/894,213 LORIN 103(a) HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY Examiner Name: ALVAREZ, RAQUEL

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Hosowich 11/407,460 SILVERBERG 102(b)/103(a) MACMILLAN SOBANSKI & TODD, LLC Examiner Name: PASSANITI, SEBASTIANO

Ex Parte Larson et al 11/566,779 HORNER 251 improper recapture/103(a) ROBERT D ATKINS Examiner Name: KAVANAUGH, JOHN T

What has become known as the “recapture rule,” prevents a patentee from regaining through a reissue patent subject matter that the patentee surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of claims in the patent sought to be reissued. In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If a patentee attempts to “recapture” what the patentee previously surrendered in order to obtain allowance of original patent claims, that “deliberate withdrawal or amendment … cannot be said to involve the inadvertence or mistake contemplated by 35 U.S.C. § 251, and is not an error of the kind which will justify the granting of a reissue patent which includes the [subject] matter withdrawn.” Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Haliczer v. United States, 356 F.2d 541, 545 (Ct. Cl. 1966)); see also Hester Indus., Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142
F.3d 1472, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

The Federal Circuit's opinion in Clement discusses a three-step test for analyzing recapture.

Step 1 involves a determination of whether and in what aspect any claims sought to be reissued are broader than the patent claims. The Federal Circuit reasoned that a reissue application claim deleting a limitation or element from a patent claim is broader as to that limitation’s or element’s aspect. 131 F.3d at 1468.

Step 2 involves a determination of whether the broader aspects of the reissue application claims relate to surrendered subject matter. 131 F.3d at 1468-69. In this respect, review of arguments and/or amendments during the prosecution history of the application, which matured into the patent sought to be reissued, is appropriate. In reviewing the prosecution history, the Federal Circuit observed that “[d]eliberately canceling or amending a claim in an effort to overcome a [prior art] reference strongly suggests that the applicant admits that the scope of the claim before cancellation or amendment is unpatentable.” 131 F.3d at 1469. See also Hester Indus., 142 F.3d at 1481 (“an amendment to overcome a prior art rejection evidences an admission that the claim was not patentable” (citations omitted)).

Step 3 of the Clement test is applied when the broadening relates to surrendered subject matter and involves a determination whether the surrendered subject matter has crept into the reissue application claim. 131 F.3d at 1469 (citations omitted).

Clement, In re, 131 F.3d 1464,45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . 1412.02

Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641(Fed. Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1412.02

Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 27 USPQ2d 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . . . 1412.02

Ex Parte Prescott 10/818,768 SILVERBERG 102(e)/103(a) KAREN A. REX Examiner Name: KASZTEJNA, MATTHEW JOHN

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
Ex Parte Aiken et al 11/219,527 SCHAFER 112(2)/102(b)/103(a) Rehrig Pacific Examiner Name: CASTELLANO, STEPHEN J

Ex Parte Owensby 10/857,268 SILVERBERG 103(a) ALSTON & BIRD LLP Examiner Name: BRADEN, SHAWN M

REEXAMINATION

EXAMINER REVERSED

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Original Art Unit 2824
Ex parte BROADCOM CORP. 90/006803 6,519,204 EASTHOM 102(b)/103(a) MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD Examiner Name: POKRZYWA, JOSEPH R

NEW

REVERSED

Ex Parte Likes et al

AFFIRMED

Ex Parte Arslan et al
Ex Parte Berg et al
Ex Parte Boss et al
Ex Parte Buchwald et al
Ex Parte Candy et al
Ex Parte Espy et al
Ex Parte Johnson et al
Ex Parte Lechat et al
Ex Parte Norquist et al