Ex Parte BIEMAN - Page 53




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

                  GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring.                                                               
                          I agree with the majority’s decision to affirm the rejection of claims 30 through 85                   
                  under 35 U.S.C. § 251 based on recapture.  Particularly in light of the correspondence                         
                  between the recapture pertinent facts in this appeal and those in Pannu v. Storz                               
                  Instruments, Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001), this affirmance is                          
                  appropriate as fully explained in the majority opinion.                                                        
                          I write separately to express my disagreement with certain statements made by the                      
                  majority which are unnecessary for resolution of this appeal and which are contrary to                         
                  binding decisional and statutory authority.                                                                    
                          On page 27 of this decision, the majority states “the proper interpretation of the                     
                  applicable and binding case law is that surrendered subject matter includes any claim that                     
                  lacks a limitation directed to the specific subject matter that was added to overcome a                        
                  prior art rejection.”  This definition of surrendered subject matter is proper under                           
                  appropriate factual circumstances such as those of the instant appeal.  See Pannu, id.                         
                  However, when read in context, this statement clearly reflects the majority’s position that                    
                  it is not proper under any circumstances to define surrendered subject matter vis-à-vis the                    
                  recapture rule in terms of a claim which has been canceled or amended in order to avoid a                      
                  rejection.                                                                                                     
                          This position is erroneous.                                                                            
                          The binding precedent of our present and past reviewing courts includes                                
                  numerous decisions which define surrendered subject matter in terms of a claim that had                        
                  been canceled or amended to avoid a rejection.  For example: See In re Clement, 131                            
                  F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997);  Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d                             
                  1429, 221 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Richman, 409 F.2d 269, 161 USPQ 359                                 
                  (CCPA 1969); In re Byers, 230 F.2d 451, 109 USPQ 53 (CCPA 1956); In re Wadsworth,                              
                  107 F.2d 596, 43 USPQ 460 (CCPA 1939).  The majority has contradicted this binding                             


                                                             - 53 -                                                              





Page:  Previous  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007