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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007