Ex Parte BIEMAN - Page 43




                  Appeal No. 2004-0659                                                                                           
                  Application No. 09/111,978                                                                                     

                                                                  (10)                                                           
                                            RELEVANCE OF PROSECUTION HISTORY                                                     

                          “Surrendered subject matter” is defined in connection with prosecution history                         
                  estoppel in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 733-34,                         
                  122 S. Ct. 1831, 1838, 62 USPQ2d 1705, 1710-11 (2002) (Festo II):                                              
                          The doctrine of equivalents allows the patentee to claim those                                         
                          insubstantial alterations that were not captured in drafting the original                              
                          patent claim but which could be created through trivial changes.  When,                                
                          however, the patentee originally claimed the subject matter alleged to                                 
                          infringe but then narrowed the claim in response to a rejection, he may not                            
                          argue that the surrendered territory comprised unforeseen subject matter                               
                          that should be deemed equivalent to the literal claims of the issued patent.                           
                          On the contrary, “[b]y the amendment [the patentee] recognized and                                     
                          emphasized the difference between the two phrases[,] ... and [t]he                                     
                          difference which [the patentee] thus disclaimed must be regarded as                                    
                          material.”  Exhibit Supply Co. v. Ace Patents Corp., 315 U.S. 126, 136-37,                             
                          62 S. Ct. 513, 518-19 [52 USPQ 275, 279-80] (1942).                                                    
                          Festo II goes on to comment, 535 U.S. at 737-41, 122 S. Ct. at 1840-42, 62                             
                  USPQ2d at 1712-14:                                                                                             
                          [Prosecution history estoppel’s] reach requires an examination of the                                  
                          subject matter surrendered by the narrowing amendment.  [A] complete                                   
                          bar [would avoid] this inquiry by establishing a per se rule; but that                                 
                          approach is inconsistent with the purpose of applying the estoppel in the                              
                          first place to hold the inventor to the representations made during the                                
                          application process and to the inferences that may reasonably be drawn                                 
                          from the amendment (emphasis added).                                                                   

                                                                *                                                                
                                                                *                                                                
                                                                *                                                                
                          A patentee’s decision to narrow his claims through amendment may be                                    
                          presumed to be a general disclaimer of the territory between the original                              
                          claim and the amended claim.  Exhibit Supply, 315 U.S., at 136-137, 62 S.                              
                          Ct. 513 (“By the amendment [the patentee] recognized and emphasized                                    
                          the difference between the two phrases and proclaimed his abandonment                                  
                                                             - 43 -                                                              





Page:  Previous  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007