Ex Parte Aleles et al - Page 22



             Appeal No. 2006-2248                                                                               
             Application No. 10/158,618                                                                         

                   The Federal Circuit, applying the Clement three-step test, held that the                     
             reissue claims were broader in scope than the originally-issued claims in that they                
             no longer require the “inner walls” to be “generally convex.”  The Federal Circuit                 
             further found that the broadened aspect (i.e., the broadened limitation) “relate[d] to             
             subject matter that was surrendered during prosecution of the original-filed                       
             claims.”  415 F.3d at 1350, 75 USPQ2d at 1557.  The Federal Circuit observed                       
             “the reissue claims were not narrowed with respect to the ‘inner wall’ limitation,                 
             thus avoiding the recapture rule.”  The Federal Circuit stated:                                    
                   [t]hat the reissue claims, looked at as a whole, may be of                                   
                   “intermediate scope” is irrelevant. . . . [T]he recapture rule is applied                    
                   on a limitation-by-limitation basis, and ... [North American                                 
                   Container’s] deletion of the “generally convex” limitation clearly                           
                   broadened the “inner wall” limitation.                                                       
             Id.  Thus, the Federal Circuit in North American Container further developed the                   
             principles of Substep (3)(a) of Clement:  “broader in an aspect germane to a prior                 
             art rejection” means broader with respect to a specific limitation (1) added to                    
             overcome prior art in prosecution of the application which matured into the patent                 
             sought to be reissued and (2) eliminated in the reissue application claims.                        




                                                     - 22 -                                                     




Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007