Ex Parte Apps et al - Page 36



         Appeal 2005-0801                                                                                       
         Application 09/848,628                                                                                 

                claimed waste cart can have any type of lid, or no lid at all).  The subject                    
                matter of a lid was before Appellants and the Examiner at the time the                          
                rejection(s) were made, and therefore is germane to the art rejection(s).                       
                       Reissue claim 8 is narrower than original patent application claims 1,                   
                2, and 4 in reciting a perforated false bottom that is pivotable and that has a                 
                support member extending downwardly from the perforated false bottom.                           
                The issue of whether this claimed aspect is germane to the art rejection can                    
                be viewed in one of two ways, as follows.                                                       
                       On the one hand, it can be said that the claimed aspect of a perforated                  
                false bottom is germane to the art rejection(s) in view of the prosecution                      
                history11.  This subject matter was not overlooked12 by Appellants (it was                      
                                                                                                               
                11  The subject matter of a perforated false bottom existed in original patent                  
                application claims 5, 7, 9, 15, 18, and 19.  Claims 9 and 19, for example,                      
                each recited that the perforated false bottom is hingedly connected to the                      
                hollow body.                                                                                    
                12  As explained in Hester, 142 F.3d 1472, 1482-83, 46 U.S.P.Q.2d 1641,                         
                1649-50 (Fed. Cir. 1998), reissue claims which recapture surrendered                            
                subject matter nevertheless may avoid the recapture rule “when the reissue                      
                claims are materially narrower in other overlooked aspects of the invention.                    
                The purpose of this exception to the recapture rule is to allow the patentee to                 
                obtain through reissue a scope of protection to which he is rightfully entitled                 
                for such overlooked aspects.”  North Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak                           
                Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1349, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1545, 1556 (Fed. Cir.                       
                2005) ("finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially                        
                narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged,                      
                and hence avoid the recapture rule"); Pannu v. Storz Instr., Inc., 258 F.3d                     
                1366, 1371, 59 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597, 1600 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("[f]inally, the court                    
                must determine whether the reissued claims were materially narrowed in                          
                other respects to avoid the recapture rule").                                                   
                                                      36                                                        




Page:  Previous  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007