Ex Parte GEDNEY et al - Page 32



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

                    North American Container involved a reissue patent, which had been held                            
              invalid by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  The district                     
              court bottomed its invalidity holding based on a violation of the recapture rule.                        
              During prosecution of an application for patent, an examiner rejected the claims                         
              over a combination of two prior art references:  Dechenne and Jakobsen.  To                              
              overcome the rejection, North American Container limited its application claims                          
              by specifying that a shape of “inner walls” of a base of a container was “generally                      
              convex.”  North American Container convinced the examiner that the shape of the                          
              base, as amended, defined over “both the Dechenne patent, wherein the                                    
              corresponding wall portions 3 are slightly concave ... and the Jakobsen patent,                          
              wherein the entire reentrant portion is clearly concave in its entirety.”  415 F.3d at                   
              1340, 75 USPQ2d at 1549.  After a patent issued containing the amended claims,                           
              North American Container filed a reissue application seeking reissue claims in                           
              which (1) the language “inner wall portions are generally convex” was eliminated,                        
              but (2) the language “wherein the diameter of said re-entrant portion is in the range                    
              of 5% to 30% of the overall diameter of said side wall” was added.  Thus, the                            
              claim sought be reissued was broader in some aspects and narrower in other                               
              aspects.                                                                                                 

                                                        - 32 -                                                         

Page:  Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013