Ex Parte Rosenberg et al - Page 35



             Appeal No. 2005-0642                                                                               
             Application No. 09/568,278                                                                         

                   What evidence may an applicant rely on to rebut any prima facie case of                      
             recapture?                                                                                         
                   We hold that the admissible rebuttal evidence generally should be limited to                 
             (1) the prosecution history of the application which matured into the patent sought                
             to be reissued and (2) showings related to what was known by a person having                       
             ordinary skill in the art at the time an amendment was made.  Nevertheless, we                     
             cannot attempt to divine, at this time, all evidence that might be relevant.  As with              
             other issues that come before the USPTO, such as obviousness and enablement, the                   
             evidence to be presented will vary on a case-by-case basis, as will the analysis of                
             that evidence.                                                                                     
                   “It is clear that in determining whether ‘surrender’ of subject matter has                   
             occurred, the proper inquiry is whether an objective observer viewing the                          
             prosecution history would conclude that the purpose of the patentee's amendment                    
             or argument was to overcome prior art and secure the patent.”  Kim v. Conagra                      
             Foods, Inc., 465 F.3d 1312, 1323, 80 USPQ2d 1495, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 2006).  Thus,                    
             we also hold that an applicant must show that at the time the amendment was                        
             made, an “objective observer” could not reasonably have viewed the subject matter                  
             broader than any narrowing amendment as having been surrendered.  The showing                      
                                                     - 35 -                                                     




Page:  Previous  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007