Ex Parte KRAUS - Page 89

          Appeal No. 2005-0841                                                        
          Application No. 08/230,083                                                  

          differently today, it still stands as binding precedent until               
          overruled.25  On the other hand, what may have been traditional             
          practice is not, without a clear holding of one of the Federal              
          Circuit's predecessors, binding upon it.26  The Federal Circuit has         
          adopted the rule that prior decisions of a panel of the court are           
          binding precedent on subsequent panels unless and until overturned          
          en banc.  Where there is direct conflict, the earliest decision             
          controls.27  We believe it is the burden of the majority to                 
          establish that their new interpretation of "surrendered subject             
          matter" is consistent with the decisions in Willingham, Wesseler,           
          Richman, Wadlinger and Whittaker.  This, they have not done.                
                             SUMMARY OF THE RECAPTURE RULE                            
               In our opinion, the Federal Circuit has set forth the                  
          following analytical process for determining if the recapture rule          
          should be applied against claims in a reissue application.                  



               25   In re Durden, 763 F.2d 1406, 1410, 226 USPQ 359, 361 (Fed. Cir.   
          1985).  See also Larry Harmon Pictures Corp. v. Williams Rest. Corp., 929 F.2d
          662, 666, 18 USPQ2d 1292, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The Federal Circuit has    
          recognized that later CCPA decisions could resolve precedential inconsistencies
          sub silento; later CCPA decisions would control because that court always sat en
          banc.  In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1011, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
               26   Dynamics Corp. v. United States, 766 F.2d 518, 520, 226 USPQ 622, 623
          (Fed. Cir. 1985).                                                           
               27   Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 765, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1423
          (Fed. Cir. 1988).  Decisions of a three-judge panel cannot overturn prior   
          precedential decisions of the court.  Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555,
          1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  A reversal of such a holding would
          have to be through an en banc proceeding in the Federal Circuit, Supreme Court
          review, or a change in the patent statute by Congress.  Jacobs Wind Elec. Co. v.
          Florida Dep't of Transp.,  919 F.2d 726, 728, 16 USPQ2d 1972, 1973-74 (Fed. Cir.
          1990).                                                                      
                                        -89-                                          


Page:  Previous  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007