Interference No. 103,379 Decision on Reconsideration and Ballew v. Watson, 129 USPQ 48, 49-50 (D.C. Cir 1961), cited in Dance's opening brief at 16, which are characterized in Dance's request for reconsideration (at 5) as "stand[ing] for the principle that removal of language from the specification [sic, claims] introduces 'new matter' and is contrary to the reissue statute." This is not a fair characterization of the holdings in these cases, which we understand to mean that reissue claims may not be broadened to omit features described as essential in the original patent. For example, while Dance's opening brief (at 16) correctly quotes U.S. Indus., the most recent of the cited Supreme Court cases, as stating that [t]his court has uniformly held that the omission from a reissue patent of one of the steps or elements prescribed in the original, thus broadening the claims to cover a new and different combination, renders the reissue void, even though the result attained is the same as that brought about by following the process claimed in the original patent. (emphasis added) 315 U.S. at 678, the phrase "prescribed in the original" must be read in conjunction with the Court's holding that "[w]e think it plain that the reissue omitted a - 12 -Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007