Appeal No. 98-0532
Application 07/996,382
applications are met. See �251[3]. (42 USPQ2d at
1473, emphasis added).
The court continued that the second paragraph of Section 251
was intended as enabling, and not as limiting, and “places no
greater burden on Mr. Graff’s continuation reissue application
than upon a continuation of an original application.”
This, in our view, is dispositive of the issue before us.
There is no dispute that the appellant’s reissue patent was
properly filed as a broadening reissue, and the reissue
application now before us was properly filed as a continuation
of the first, which at that time was a pending reissue
application. As such, the continuation reissue application
is entitled to the same treatment as a continuation
application based upon an original application.
The rejection is not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007