Interference No. 103,379
Decision on Reconsideration
"new matter" argument as based on the requirement of § 251
that the reissue
claims be directed to "the invention disclosed in the original
patent" and, citing Hester Indus. Inc. v. Stein Inc., 142 F.3d
1472, 1484, 46 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,
525 U.S. 947 (1998), noted that this inquiry is analogous to
the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph (Decision at 40). After analyzing the facts in the
present case in accordance with the principles set forth in
Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473,
45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998), which held that the
disclosure of Gentry's patent (i.e., Sproule patent No.
5,062,244) did not provide § 112, first paragraph, written
description support for the broadened amended claim, we
concluded that Seifert's original disclosure provides written
description support for Seifert's broadened reissue claims.
Dance argues that our decision is incorrect because it ignores
U.S. Indus. Chems. Co. v. Carbide & Carbon Chems. Corp., 315
U.S. 668, 678 (1941); Russell v. Dodge, 93 U.S. 460, 463
(1876); Pattee Plow Co. v. Kingman, 129 U.S. 294, 299 (1888);
- 11 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007