Appeal No. 2000-0132
Application No. 08/934,791
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments and evidence
advanced by both the examiner and appellants in support of their
respective positions. As a result of this review, we make the
following determinations.
35 U.S.C. § 251
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims
21 through 25, 27, 31, 44 through 46, 48, 52, 54, 55 and 61 under
35 U.S.C. § 251 as lacking a “reissuable error.” 35 U.S.C. § 251
provides:
Whenever any patent is, through error without any deceptive
intention, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid,
by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by
reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a
right to claim in the patent, the Commissioner shall, on the
surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required
by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in
the original patent, and in accordance with a new and
amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of
the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into
the application for reissue.
The Commissioner may issue several reissued patents for
distinct and separate parts of the think patented, upon
demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required
fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents.
The provisions of this title relating to applications for
patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a
patent, except that application for reissue may be made and
sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007