Ex Parte Aleles et al - Page 29



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

                                                      (9)                                                       
                                           Burden of proof analysis                                             
                   Our analysis begins with an observation made by our appellate reviewing                      
             court in Hester, 142 F.3d at 1481-82, 46 USPQ2d at 1649:                                           
                   [A]s recognized in Ball, the recapture rule is based on principles of                        
                   equity[4] and therefore embodies the notion of estoppel.  729 F.2d at                        
                   1439, 221 USPQ at 296.  Indeed, the recapture rule is quite similar to                       
                   prosecution history estoppel, which prevents the application of the                          
                   doctrine of equivalents in a manner contrary to the patent’s                                 
                   prosecution history.  See Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis                               
                   Chem. Co., [520 U.S. 17, 33] 117 S. Ct. 1040, 1051[41 USPQ2d                                 
                   1865, 1873] (1997).  Like the recapture rule, prosecution history                            
                   estoppel prevents a patentee from regaining subject matter                                   
                   surrendered during prosecution in support of patentability.  See id.                         
                          Hester argues that an analogy cannot be made with prosecution                         
                   history estoppel because the reissue procedure and prosecution history                       
                   estoppel are the antithesis of one another--reissue allows an expansion                      
                   of patent rights whereas prosecution history estoppel is limiting.                           
                   However, Hester’s argument is unpersuasive.  The analogy is not to                           
                   the broadening aspect of reissue.  Rather, the analogy is with the                           
                   recapture rule, which restricts the permissible range of expansion                           
                   through reissue just as prosecution history estoppel restricts the                           
                   permissible range of equivalents under the doctrine of equivalents.                          
                                                                                                               
             4   The reissue statute has been characterized as being remedial in nature, based on               
             fundamental principles of equity and fairness and should be construed liberally.  In               
             re Bennett, 766 F.2d 524, 528, 226 USPQ 413, 416 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc); In re                 
             Willingham, 282 F.2d 353, 354-55, 127 USPQ 211, 214 (CCPA 1960).                                   
             Nevertheless, fairness to the public must also be considered.  As stated in Mentor,                
             "the reissue statement cannot be construed in such a way that competitors, properly                
             relying on prosecution history, become patent infringers when they do so."  998                    
             F.2d at 996, 27 USPQ2d at 1525.                                                                    
                                                     - 29 -                                                     




Page:  Previous  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007