Appeal 2006-1865
Application 09/660,433
Patent 5,802,641
not necessarily sufficient to save the reissue claim from the recapture rule.” 67
USPQ at 1729.
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences Standard Operating Procedure 2
(Revision 6) (August 10, 2005) mandates that a published precedential opinion of
the Board is binding on all judges of the Board unless the views expressed in an
opinion in support of the decision, among a number of things, are inconsistent with
a decision of the Federal Circuit. In our view, the majority view in Eggert is
believed to be inconsistent with the subsequent Federal Circuit decision in North
American Container with respect to the principles governing application of
Substep (3)(a) of Clement.
The Eggert majority’s analysis is believed to be consistent with North
American Container in that the majority applied the three-step framework analysis
set forth in applicable Federal Circuit opinions, e.g., (1) Pannu v. Storz Instruments
Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 1370-71, 59 USPQ2d 1597, 1600 (Fed. Cir. 2001); (2)
Clement, 131 F.3d at 1470, 45 USPQ2d at 1165 and (3) Hester, 142 F.3d at 148,
46 USPQ2d at 1648-49. However, the Eggert majority also held that the
surrendered subject matter was the rejected claim only rather than the amended
portion of the issued claim. 67 USPQ2d at 1717. At a similar point in the
- 24 -
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013