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