Appeal No. 2005-0841
Application No. 08/230,083
Is it
(1) the subject matter of original patent application
claims 1, 3-5 and 7-11 or
(2) the subject matter of original patent application
claims 1, 3-5 and 7-11 and, on a limitation-by-limitation basis,
the territory falling between the scope of
(a) original patent application claims 1, 3-5 and 7-11
and
(b) original patent application claims 2 and 12.
For the reasons which follow, we believe that it is (1) while the
majority believes it is (2).
In the context of recapture under 35 U.S.C. § 251, surrendered
subject matter has been determined by the Supreme Court, the
Federal Circuit, or the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)
to be either (1) the rejected claim deliberately canceled or
amended in an effort to overcome a prior art rejection (which
strongly suggests that the applicant admits that the scope of the
claim before the cancellation or amendment is unpatentable);16 or
(2) the argued claim minus the argued limitations when surrender
16 See Leggett v. Avery, 101 U.S. 256, 259-60 (1879); Dobson v. Lees,
137 U.S. 258, 265-66 (1890); Byers, 230 F.2d at 455-56, 109 USPQ at 55-56; In re
Willingham, 282 F.2d 353, 356-57, 127 USPQ 211, 215-16 (CCPA 1960); In re
Wesseler, 367 F.2d 838, 151 USPQ 339 (CCPA 1966); In re Richman, 409 F.2d 269,
161 USPQ 359 (CCPA 1969); In re Wadlinger, 496 F.2d 1200, 1207-08, 181 USPQ 826,
832 (CCPA 1974); Ball Corporation v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1435-36, 221
USPQ 289, 293-95 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Whittaker Corp. v. UNR Industries Inc., 911
F.2d 709, 713, 15 USPQ2d 1742, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast,
Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995, 27 USPQ2d 1521, 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1993); and Clement,
131 F.3d at 1468-70, 45 USPQ2d at 1163-65.
-78-
Page: Previous 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007