Ex Parte GEDNEY et al - Page 29



              Appeal 2006-1454                                                                                         
              Application 09/004,524                                                                                   
              Patent 5,483,421                                                                                         

                                                         (2)                                                           
                                             Recapture is not an error                                                 
                                      within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 251                                            
                     What has become known as the “recapture rule,” prevents a patentee from                           
              regaining through a reissue patent subject matter that the patentee surrendered in                       
              an effort to obtain allowance of claims in the patent sought to be reissued.  In re                      
              Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 1468, 45 USPQ2d 1161, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 1997).                                     
                     If a patentee attempts to “recapture” what the patentee previously                                
              surrendered in order to obtain allowance of original patent claims, that “deliberate                     
              withdrawal or amendment ... cannot be said to involve the inadvertence or mistake                        
              contemplated by 35 U.S.C. § 251, and is not an error of the kind which will justify                      
              the granting of a reissue patent which includes the [subject] matter withdrawn.”                         
              Mentor Corp. v.Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995, 27 USPQ2d 1521, 1524 (Fed.                            
              Cir. 1993), quoting from Haliczer v. United States, 356 F.2d 541, 545, 148 USPQ                          
              565, 569 (Ct. Cl. 1966).6  See also Hester Industries Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d                      
              1472, 1480, 46 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (Fed. Cir. 1998).                                                       
                                                                                                                       
              6   Haliczer is binding precedent.  See South Corp. v. United States, 690 F.2d                           
              1368, 215 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (in banc) (decisions of the former U.S.                              
              Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and former U.S. Court of Claims decisions                            
              are binding precedent).                                                                                  

                                                        - 29 -                                                         

Page:  Previous  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013