Ex Parte GREENE et al - Page 24



                Appeal 2006-1068                                                                                                         
                Reissue Application 08/425,766                                                                                           

                                                                  (2)                                                                    
                                                    Recapture is not an error                                                            
                                            within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 251                                                        
                        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, 45 USPQ2d 1161, 1164 (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                the granting of a reissue patent which includes the [subject] matter withdrawn.”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, 27 USPQ2d 1521, 1524 (Fed.                                           
                Cir. 1993), quoting from Haliczer v. United States, 356 F.2d 541, 545, 148 USPQ                                          
                565, 569 (Ct. Cl. 1966).2  See also Hester Industries Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d                                      
                1472, 1480, 46 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 947 (1998).                                         



                                                                                                                                        
                2   Haliczer is binding precedent.  See South Corp. v. United States, 690 F.2d                                           
                1368, 215 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (in banc) (decisions of the former U.S.                                              
                Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and former U.S. Court of Claims decisions                                            
                are binding precedent).                                                                                                  


                                                                  24                                                                     




Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007