Ex Parte GEDNEY et al - Page 40



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

                                                         (9)                                                           
                                              Burden of proof analysis                                                 
                     Our analysis begins with an observation made by our appellate reviewing                           
              court in Hester, 142 F.3d at 1481-82, 46 USPQ2d at 1649:                                                 
                     [A]s recognized in Ball, the recapture rule is based on principles of                             
                     equity[7] and therefore embodies the notion of estoppel.  729 F.2d at                             
                     1439, 221 USPQ at 296.  Indeed, the recapture rule is quite similar to                            
                     prosecution history estoppel, which prevents the application of the                               
                     doctrine of equivalents in a manner contrary to the patent’s                                      
                     prosecution history.  See Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis                                    
                     Chem. Co., [520 U.S. 17, 33,] 117 S. Ct. 1040, 1051[, 41 USPQ2d                                   
                     1865, 1873] (1997).  Like the recapture rule, prosecution history                                 
                     estoppel prevents a patentee from regaining subject matter                                        
                     surrendered during prosecution in support of patentability.  See id.                              
                           Hester argues that an analogy cannot be made with prosecution                               
                     history estoppel because the reissue procedure and prosecution history                            
                     estoppel are the antithesis of one another--reissue allows an expansion                           
                     of patent rights whereas prosecution history estoppel is limiting.                                
                     However, Hester’s argument is unpersuasive.  The analogy is not to                                
                     the broadening aspect of reissue.  Rather, the analogy is with the                                
                     recapture rule, which restricts the permissible range of expansion                                
                     through reissue just as prosecution history estoppel restricts the                                
                     permissible range of equivalents under the doctrine of equivalents.                               
                                                                                                                      
              7   The reissue statute has been characterized as being remedial in nature, based on                     
              fundamental principles of equity and fairness and should be construed liberally.  In                     
              re Bennett, 766 F.2d 524, 528, 226 USPQ 413, 416 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc); In                          
              re Willingham, 282 F.2d 353, 354-55, 127 USPQ 211, 214 (CCPA 1960).                                      
              Nevertheless, fairness to the public must also be considered.  As stated in Mentor,                      
              "the reissue statement cannot be construed in such a way that competitors, properly                      
              relying on prosecution history, become patent infringers when they do so."  998                          
              F.2d at 996, 27 USPQ2d at 1525.                                                                          

                                                        - 40 -                                                         

Page:  Previous  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013