Ex Parte GREENE et al - Page 40



                Appeal 2006-1068                                                                                                         
                Reissue Application 08/425,766                                                                                           

                        should be discernible from the prosecution history record, if the public                                         
                        notice function of a patent and its prosecution history is to have                                               
                        significance.  See id. at 1356 (“Only the public record of the patent                                            
                        prosecution, the prosecution history, can be a basis for [the reason for                                         
                        the amendment to the claim].  Otherwise, the public notice function of                                           
                        the patent record would be undermined.”); Festo [I], 234 F.3d at 586                                             
                        (“In order to give due deference to public notice considerations under                                           
                        the Warner-Jenkinson framework, a patent holder seeking to establish                                             
                        the reason for an amendment must base his arguments solely upon the                                              
                        public record of the patent’s prosecution, i.e., the patent’s prosecution                                        
                        history.  To hold otherwise--that is, to allow a patent holder to rely on                                        
                        evidence not in the public record to establish a reason for an                                                   
                        amendment--would undermine the public notice function of the patent                                              
                        record.”).  Moreover, whether an amendment was merely tangential to                                              
                        an alleged equivalent necessarily requires focus on the context in                                               
                        which the amendment was made; hence the resort to the prosecution                                                
                        history.  Thus, whether the patentee has established a merely                                                    
                        tangential reason for a narrowing amendment is for the court to                                                  
                        determine from the prosecution history record without the                                                        
                        introduction of additional evidence, except, when necessary,                                                     
                        testimony from those skilled in the art as to the interpretation of that                                         
                        record.                                                                                                          
                        . . . When at all possible, determination of the third rebuttal criterion                                        
                        should also be limited to the prosecution history record. . . . We need                                          
                        not decide now what evidence outside the prosecution history record,                                             
                        if any, should be considered in determining if a patentee has met its                                            
                        burden under this third rebuttal criterion.                                                                      
                        We interpret Festo III to generally, perhaps effectively, limit the admissible                                   
                rebuttal evidence to the prosecution history record and extrinsic evidence related to                                    



                                                                  40                                                                     




Page:  Previous  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007