Appeal No. 2000-0132
Application No. 08/934,791
deceptive intention, deemed wholly or partly
inoperative or invalid, . . . by reason of the patentee
claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in
the patent, the Commissioner shall . . . reissue the
patent for the invention disclosed in the original
patent . . . .
This reissue statute does not require that the appellants
particularly specify the errors relied upon. Nor does 37 CFR
§ 1.175 (1998),4 which is derived from the reissue statute,
require the appellants to particularly specify the errors relied
upon. Specifically, it only requires that:5
(1) The applicant believes the original patent to
be 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 the patentee
had the right to claim in the patent, stating at least
one error being relied upon as the basis for reissue;
and
(2) All errors being corrected in the reissue
application . . . arose without any deceptive intention
on the part of the applicant.
This new rule, as correctly stated by the appellants at page 8 of
the Brief, “only requires the identification of at least one
4 This rule became effective on December 1, 1997, during the
pendency of this patent application. When a rule is changed
during the pendency of a patent application, the rule in effect
on the date of our decision is the one that controls. Compare
Shockley v. Arcan, Inc., 248 F.3d 1349, 1358-59, 58 USPQ2d 1692,
1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
5 37 CFR § 1.175 (a)(1) and (a)(2)(1998)
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007