weiler, doyle, U.S. Indus. Chems., orita

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1783 Ex Parte Gerrard 12180748 - (D) PAK 103 CANTOR COLBURN LLP MILLER, DANIEL H

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2172 Ex Parte Ayers 11130578 - (D) FINK 103 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 WRIGHT, ELIZABETH G

2181 Ex Parte Seo et al 13846566 - (D) EVANS 251 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. TAYLOR, BROOKE JAZMOND

The section of the patent statute providing for correction of errors in a patent by reissue of the patent reads, in pertinent part:

Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid ... by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for invention disclosed in the original patent.

35 U.S.C. 251(a).

"[T]he whole purpose of the [reissue] statute, so far as claims are concerned, is to permit limitations to be added to claims that are too broad or to be taken from claims that are too narrow." In re Weiler, 790 F.2d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cri. 1986) (quoting In re Handel, 312 F.2d 943, 948 (CCPA 1963)). The "Orita doctrine" precludes applicants from obtaining by reissue subject matter, which was barred from their original patent because of a requirement for restriction in which they had acquiesced. In re Orita, 550 F.2d 1277, 1280 (CCPA 1977).

When applicants acquiesce in the Examiner's requirement for restriction, such action manifestly is not "error" causing patentee to claim "less than he had a right to claim in the patent" in the language of 35 U.S.C. 251. Id.

Three classes of subject matter established by election

Section 251 authorizes reissue for a first class of subject matter: "the invention disclosed in the original patent." In re Weiler, 790 F.2d at 1581.  The Orita doctrine precludes a second class of subject matter.  Reissue applicants may not obtain substantially identical claims to those of non-elected groups identified in an Examiner's restriction requirement when such claims could not have been prosecuted in the application from which they were restricted.  See Ex Parte Morrison, Appeal 2012-010066, slip op. at 4 (PTAB July 16, 2013) (citing In re Doyle, 293 F.3d 1355, 1359) (Fed, Cir 2002)).

Applicants must affirmatively elect subject matter for prosecution in response to an Examiner's requirement for restriction.  Thus, a third class of subject matter may be caused to exist by an Appellant's election:

[I]t is not enough that an invention might have been claimed in the original patent because it was suggested or indicated in the specification.  It must appear from the face of the instrument that what is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.

Weiler, 790 F.2d at 1582 (quoting U.S. Indus. Chems., Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chems. Corp., 315 U.S. 668, 676 (1942); see also Morrison, slip op. at 8.


Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2413 Ex Parte Yin et al 11988653 - (D) HAGY 103 41.50 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC LIU, SIMING

2413 Ex Parte Yin et al 11988697 - (D) HAGY 103 41.50 103 THOMSON Licensing LLC LIU, SIMING

2461 Ex Parte Wan et al 11994491 - (D) EVANS 103 ERICSSON INC. BEDNASH, JOSEPH A

2483 Ex Parte Ramachandran et al 11602942 - (D) SAADAT 103 Garlick & Markison (VIXS) NAVAS JR, EDEMIO

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2621 Ex Parte Ungaretti et al 11564182 - (D) SHIANG 103 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (EP ORIGINATING) MIDKIFF, AARON

2664 Ex Parte ITO et al 12487922 - (D) HAGY 102 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP DIEP, TRUNG T

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3626 Ex Parte Hyde et al 12378284 - (D) MOHANTY 112(2)/103 Constellation Law Group, PLLC RAJ, RAJIV J

3682 Ex Parte Nixon-Lane 11873683 - (D) BROWN 103 BGL/Ann Arbor MYHRE, JAMES W

3684 Ex Parte McGonigal et al 12615476 - (D) MOHANTY 102/103 WINSTEAD P.C. IBM CORP. (WSM) ZIMMERMAN, MATTHEW E

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3721 Ex Parte Jones 12750081 - (D) WOODS 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP JALLOW, EYAMINDAE CHOSSAN

3748 Ex Parte Stefanick et al 12314006 - (D) MURPHY 102/103 CATERPILLAR/FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, L.L.P. BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3779 Ex Parte Sauer et al 11383598 - (D) JENKS 103 103 SIEMENS CORPORATION BOLER, RYNAE E

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1647 Ex Parte Dengjel 11942394 - (D) JENKS 103 MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC STANFIELD, CHERIE MICHELLE

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1715 Ex Parte Ma et al 12374066 - (D) HASTINGS 103 The BOC Group, Inc. CHEN, BRET P

1764 Ex Parte Iwamura et al 11522197 - (D) HASTINGS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY REDDY, KARUNA P

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2163 Ex Parte Grois 12156589 - (D) STRAUSS 103 Dan Grois GOFMAN, ALEX N

2166 Ex Parte Tapper et al 12603020 - (D) KOHUT 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY OBERLY, VAN HONG

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Wajs 10124177 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Reed Smith LLP ALAM, MUSHFIKH I

2475 Ex Parte Ambrose et al 12135017 - (D) PYONIN 103 Emulex Corporation RANDHAWA, MANDISH K

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2619 Ex Parte MUSETH et al 11952446 - (D) NAPPI 112(4) 103 LYON & HARR, LLP BROOME, SAID A

2641 Ex Parte Aissi et al 10956765 - (D) NEW 103 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. c/o CPA Global AJIBADE AKONAI, OLUMIDE

2642 Ex Parte KWON 11859585 - (D) McCARTNEY 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. PATEL, NIMESH

2672 Ex Parte Tonegawa 10548428 - (D) SAADAT 103 FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO PACHOL, NICHOLAS C

2683 Ex Parte Loftin et al 11095874 - (D) DROESCH 103 PREFERRED TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC SYED, NABIL H

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3634 Ex Parte Waters et al 11254032 - (D) JENKS 103 HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS BRADFORD, CANDACE L

3654 Ex Parte Prest et al 12103643 - (D) ASTORINO 103 PATENT VENTURE GROUP TRUONG, MINH D

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Kashihara 12797798 - (D) SHAH 103 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC MUROMOTO JR, ROBERT H

3781 Ex Parte Shiffer 12429508 - (D) MARSCHALL 103 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP MATHEW, FENN C

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 GT WATER PRODUCTS, INC. Requester and Cross-appellant v. EUGENE H. LUOMA Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 6,775,873 B2 et al 09/734,249 95001754 - (D) GUEST 102/103 102/103 41.77 103 Christensen Fonder PA THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: SCHLEE IP INTERNATIONAL P.C. MCKANE, ELIZABETH L original CHIN, RANDALL E

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2624 APPLE INC. Requester v. S3 GRAPHICS CO. LTD. Patent Owner and Appellant Ex Parte 7,043,087 et al 10/893,084 95000584 - (D) DILLON 103/314 103/314 OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. Third Party Requester: Novak Druce & Quigg TRAN, HENRY N original DO, ANH HONG

centocor, doyle

custom search

REVERSED
3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3743 Ex Parte Guryevskiy et al 11138032 - (D) LEE 112(1)/102/103 JAMES RAY & ASSOCIATES BASICHAS, ALFRED

3778 Ex Parte Van Gompel et al 10325481 - (D) WALSH 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. HAND, MELANIE JO

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte SOLOMON 09441140 - (D) FREDMAN 112(1)/103 112(1) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC BALLARD, KIMBERLY

In Centocor, the Court addressed Example 13 of the USPTO written description guidelines. The Court found that the “PTO guidelines conclude that characterization of the protein alone may be sufficient under circumstances where 'one of skill in the art would have recognized that the disclosure of the adequately described [protein] X put the applicant in possession of antibodies which bind to [protein] X.'” Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 636 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir 2011).

Centocor distinguished the USPTO written description guideline situation, where the claim simply required binding an antigen, from the more complicated situation where specific properties beyond simply binding of antigen by the antibody are required. Id. at 1352.

AFFIRMED
1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649 Ex Parte Solomon 11358951 - (D) FREDMAN 251/103/112(1) Browdy and Neimark, PLLC BALLARD, KIMBERLY

We also are not persuaded by Appellant‟s reliance on Doyle. Doyle found that the case involved “a matter of first impression: whether failure to present a so-called linking claim, a claim broad enough to read on—or link—two or more groups of claims subject to a restriction requirement, is an error correctable by reissue” laid out by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. In re Doyle, 293 F.3d 1355, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

In Doyle, the Court found that

it was crucial that the applicant explicitly agreed to the requirement of independent prosecution of the disputed claims (or claims substantially similar to the disputed claims) in a divisional, and not as a part of the application directed towards the elected group. When the applicants returned in reissue seeking to add the disputed claims, the examiner, the Board, and this court rightly held them to the terms of their original agreements. The case is different where, as here, the applicant never asserted the reissue claims or anything similar to them in his original application, and also never agreed to prosecute the reissue claims in a divisional application.

Doyle, 293 F.3d at 1360. The instant facts track much more closely to Orita than to Doyle. In Doyle, there was a linking claim that was broader than all of the original claims and encompassed both groups. Id. at 1358. In this case however, no linking claim was filed.

1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1712 Ex Parte Heiligenmann et al 10572146 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION BLAN, NICOLE R

1786 Ex Parte Yoshitake et al 10557595 - (D) GAUDETTE 103 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH CROUSE, BRETT ALAN

3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3734 Ex Parte Huynh 11431727 - (D) ADAMS 112(1)/102 ALCON EVERAGE, KEVIN D

3900 Central Reexamination Unit (CRU)
2615 DPI, INC., MEMOREX PRODUCTS, INC., and IMATION CORP. Requesters and Respondents v. BOSE CORPORATION Patent Owner and Appellant 95001260 7,277,765 09/689,337 COCKS 102/103 37 C.F.R § 41.77(b) 103 FISH & RICHARDSON PC STEELMAN, MARY J original MEI, XU