Appeal No. 2006-2248
Application No. 10/158,618
Lastly, according to the Examiner, the reissue declaration:
fails to point out at least one specific error [in the patent sought to be
reissued].
We agree. As the Examiner correctly pointed out in the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides guidance on this at section 1414 thereof,
as follows:
The “at least one error ” which is relied upon to support the reissue
application must be set forth in the oath/declaration.
. . .
In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration
identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in
an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or
partly inoperative or invalid.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the “error” relied on by Appellants in the
reissue declaration is only a conclusion or allegation of error and not a specific
error.
(2) Reissue Recapture - First argument
Applicants argue at pages 6-8 of the Appeal Brief filed May 11, 2004 that
(matter in brackets added):
[Applicants submit] as Exhibit C the Declaration of Andrea L. Colby.
- 44 -
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007