Ex Parte RUSSO et al - Page 9

                Appeals 2006-2874 and 2006-2747                                                                 
                Applications 08/544,212 and 09/287,664                                                          
                Patent 5,401,305                                                                                
           1           In this case, the Examiner held that subject matter calling for a                        
           2    precursor of silicon oxide beyond that appearing in application original                        
           3    claim 11 would not have been enabled.  Appellants amended original                              
           4    application claim 1 to include the silicones of original application claim 11.                  
           5    As in the case of a prior art rejection, it is possible under the facts of this                 
           6    case to see precisely what was surrendered.  Accordingly, we see no reason                      
           7    why a recapture rejection cannot be based on a prosecution history where                        
           8    amendments were made to overcome a rejection based on a lack of                                 
           9    enablement commensurate in scope with the breadth of a claim.  The                              
          10    principles which govern recapture based on amendments made as a result of                       
          11    a prior art rejection apply equally to the rejection made by the Examiner                       
          12    during original prosecution.  The notice a member of the public would get                       
          13    from studying the prosecution history of the original application is the same                   
          14    one would normally get from reading a prosecution involving narrowing of                        
          15    claims to avoid a prior art rejection.  In this respect, we adopt as our holding                
          16    what appears to be dicta in MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson &                       
          17    Company, No. 2006-1062, slip. op. at 12-13 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2007):                           
          18                 The recapture rule is a limitation on the ability of                               
          19                 patentees to broaden their patents after issuance.                                 
          20                 . . . .  Section 251 is “remedial in nature, based on                              
          21                 fundamental principles of equity and fairness, and                                 
          22                 should be construed liberally.”  However, the                                      
          23                 remedial function of the statute is limited.                                       
          24                 Material which has been surrendered in order to                                    
          25                 obtain issuance cannot be reclaimed via Section                                    
          26                 251: . . .  It is critical to avoid allowing surrendered                           
          27                 matter to creep back into the issued patent, since                                 
          28                 competitors and the public are on notice of the                                    
          29                 surrender and may have come to rely on the                                         
          30                 consequent limitations on claim scope. . . . The                                   

                                                       9                                                        

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013