Ex Parte Steenburg - Page 23



           Appeal 2006-1865                                                                         
           Application 09/660,433                                                                   
           Patent 5,802,641                                                                         

                                                (5)                                                 
                                          Ex parte Eggert                                           
                 The opinion in Ex parte Eggert, 67 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.               
           2003), issued as a precedential opinion, is also part of the recapture precedent         
           applicable to proceedings before the United States Patent & Trademark Office             
           (USPTO).  Eggert was entered on May 29, 2003, prior to the Federal Circuit’s             
           North American Container decision.  In Eggert, a majority stated that “[i]n our          
           view, the surrendered subject matter is the outer circle of Drawing 1 [the rejected      
           claim prior to the amendment that resulted in the claim being issued] because it is      
           the subject matter Appellant conceded was unpatentable.”  67 USPQ2d at 1717.             
           The majority further held that “in our view” subject matter narrower than the            
           rejected claim but broader than the patented claim is not barred by the recapture        
           rule.  Id.  The majority explained that if the finally rejected claim was ABC and the    
           patent claim was ABCDEF, there would be recapture for ABC or anything broader            
           than ABC, but not for claims directed to ABCX, ABCDBr, ABCEF, or ABrBCDEF,               
           because those claims would be narrower than the finally rejected claim ABC.  67          
           USPQ2d at 1717.  In its opinion, the majority recognized that the Federal Circuit        
           had held that “the mere presence of narrowing limitations in the reissue claim is        


                                               - 23 -                                               

Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013