DANCE V. SEIFERT et al. - Page 11




           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