Appeal 2006-1865
Application 09/660,433
Patent 5,802,641
We hold that the admissible rebuttal evidence generally should be limited to
(1) the prosecution history of the application which matured into the patent sought
to be reissued and (2) showings related to what was known by a person having
ordinary skill in the art at the time an amendment was made. Nevertheless, we will
not attempt to divine, at this time, all evidence that might be relevant. As with
other issues that come before the USPTO, such as obviousness and enablement, the
evidence to be presented will vary on a case-by-case basis, as will the analysis of
that evidence.
“It is clear that in determining whether ‘surrender’ of subject matter has
occurred, the proper inquiry is whether an objective observer viewing the
prosecution history would conclude that the purpose of the patentee's amendment
or argument was to overcome prior art and secure the patent.” Kim v. Conagra
Foods, Inc., 465 F.3d 1312, 1323, 80 USPQ2d 1495, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Thus,
we also hold that an Appellant must show that at the time the amendment was
made, an “objective observer” could not reasonably have viewed the subject matter
broader than any narrowing amendment as having been surrendered (or that an
“objective observer” would view the reissue claims as materially narrowed). The
showing required to be made by Appellant is consistent with the public notice
- 34 -
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013