1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
Ex Parte Landingham 10/260,121 KIMLIN 103(a) LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NAT'L SECURITY, LLC EXAMINER ROE, JESSEE RANDALL
2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
Ex Parte Takeuchi 10/559,870 MANTIS MERCADER 103(a) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER BENSON, WALTER
Ex Parte LeDoux et al 10/908,488 MacDONALD 103(a) SCHLUMBERGER RESERVOIR COMPLETIONS EXAMINER GLASS, ERICK DAVID
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Nada 10/977,627 HORNER 251 OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC EXAMINER ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE, GERTRUDE
The Federal Circuit has described application of the recapture rule as “a three-step process”:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; (2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and (3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
No. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Pannu v. Storz Instruments, Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . 1412.02
Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . 1412.02
It is clear that in determining whether “surrender” of subject matter has occurred, the proper inquiry is whether an objective observer viewing the prosecution history would conclude that the purpose of the patentee’s amendment or argument was to overcome prior art and secure the patent. This is because the recapture rule is aimed at ensuring that the public can rely on a patentee’s admission during prosecution of an original patent. … Thus, if the objective public observer can discern a surrender of subject matter during the prosecution of an original patent in order to overcome prior art and obtain the patent, then the recapture rule should prevent the reissuing of that patent to claim the surrendered subject matter.
Kim v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 465 F.3d 1312, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
A surrender can occur by argument as well as by amendment. Hester [Indus., Inc. v. Stein, Inc.], 142 F.3d [1472,] 1480-84 [(Fed. Cir. 1998)] (noting the statement in Clement that “‘[t]o determine whether an applicant surrendered particular subject matter, we look to the prosecution history for arguments and changes to the claims made in an effort to overcome a prior art rejection’ ” (quoting [In re] Clement, 131 F.3d [1464,] 1469 [(Fed. Cir. 1997)]) (emphasis added in Hester, 142 F.3d at 1480)). We stated in Hester that, like prosecution history estoppel, “unmistakable assertions made to the Patent Office in support of patentability” “can give rise to a surrender for purposes of the recapture rule.” Id. at 1482.
Medtronic, Inc. v. Guidant Corp., 465 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641(Fed. Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . .1412.02
Clement, In re, 131 F.3d 1464,45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . 1412.02
Ex Parte Pagliari et al 10/215,877 FETTING 103(a) TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW, LLP EXAMINER LONG, FONYA MAFFIRMED-IN-PART
2100 Computer Architecture and Software
Ex Parte Lengeling 10/334,252 LUCAS 103(a) APPLE INC./BSTZBLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP EXAMINER PITARO, RYAN F
Ex Parte Stolowitz et al 10/885,960 FETTING 103(a) ZILKA-KOTAB, PC EXAMINER CRAIG, DWIN M
2600 Communications
Ex Parte Khayrallah et al 10/427,872 KRIVAK 103(a) COATS & BENNETT, PLLC EXAMINER
PAN, YUWEN
3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
Ex Parte Laskin et al 101709,360 FETTING 103(a) PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP EXAMINER KANG, IRENE S
AFFIRMED
Ex Parte Brandt et al EXAMINER WOO, STELLA L
Ex Parte Gray et al EXAMINER MICHALSKI, SEAN M
Ex Parte Kropaczek et al EXAMINER SAXENA, AKASH
Ex Parte Letant et al EXAMINER KIM, KIHO
Ex Parte Raivisto et al EXAMINER HUYNH, BA
Ex Parte Sugahara EXAMINER LEE, Y YOUNG
VACATED
Ex Parte Hardwick et al EXAMINER PASCHALL, MARK H
REHEARING
DENIED
Ex Parte Richert et al EXAMINER CHEN, KEATH T
GRANTED-IN-PART
Ex Parte Davis et al EXAMINER DARNO, PATRICK A
