Appeal No. 2001-2115
Reissue Application 08/433,986
of the Rule 1.175 and it does not consider what substantive
requirements of the rule are missing in the different language of
the declaration. Nevertheless, we address whether
Mr. Bieberstein's declaration satisfies the substantive
requirements of Rule 1.175(a)(1) and (a)(2).
The declaration must state under 37 CFR § 1.175(a)(1):
"The applicant believes the original patent to be wholly or
partly inoperative or invalid . . . 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." Mr. Bieberstein's declaration indicates that
he had a "lack of understanding or any idea that the concept of
an end cap switch might be novel and unobvious" (p. 3), which
states at least one error relied on as the basis for reissue.
Mr. Bieberstein's declaration states that there was "a mistake
. . . with the claiming of less than I now understand upon
information and belief to be patentable as detailed in the
Declarations of Richard E. Lyon, Jr. and John D. McConaghy,
copies of which I have reviewed and are attached thereto"
(p. 4).2 This indicates that Mr. Bieberstein claimed less than
he had a right to claim, which implies that the original patent
2 Referring to the Declaration of John D. McConaghy Under
37 CFR 1.47(b), dated May 4, 1995, and the Declaration of Richard
E. Lyon, Jr. Under 37 CFR 1.47(b), dated May 4, 1995.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007