Ex Parte 4682857 et al - Page 9

                Appeal 2006-3235                                                                                
                Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696                                                            

           1           The policy basis for construing claims broadly during a reexamination                    
           2    proceeding is explained as follows in Am. Acad., 367 F.3d at 1364,                              
           3    70 USPQ2d at 1830:                                                                              
           4           Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not                                      
           5           unfair to the applicant (or, in this case [a reexamination                               
           6           proceeding], the patentee), because the applicant has the                                
           7           opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim                             
           8           coverage.  See [In re] Yamamoto, 740 F.2d [1569,] 1571-72                                
           9           [222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984)]  (“Applicants' interests                            
          10           are not impaired since they are not foreclosed from obtaining                            
          11           appropriate coverage for their invention with express claim                              
          12           language.  An applicant's ability to amend his claims to avoid                           
          13           cited prior art distinguishes proceedings before the PTO from                            
          14           proceedings in federal district courts on issued patents.  When                          
          15           an application is pending in the PTO, the applicant has the                              
          16           ability to correct errors in claim language and adjust the scope                         
          17           of claim protection as needed.”).                                                        
          18           We note that in Ex parte Papst-Motoren, 1 USPQ2d 1655 (Bd. Pat.                          
          19    App. & Int. 1986), the Board held on rehearing that Yamamoto’s “broadest                        
          20    reasonable interpretation” standard was inapplicable because the patent had                     
          21    expired before the Board issued its initial decision on appeal, which is also                   
          22    the situation presented by the instant appeal.17  The facts in Papst-Motoren                    
          23    were as follows.  PTO records show that the order authorizing reexamination                     
          24    was issued on October 17, 1983.  The patent expired on January 9, 1985,                         
          25    which was prior to the Board’s February 27, 1986, initial decision on appeal.                   
          26    Papst-Motoren did not exercise its right to amend the patent claims or                          
          27    propose new claims prior to expiration of the patent, at which time that right                  

                                                                                                               
                       17  Neither the Examiner nor Appellant has addressed Papst-Motoren                       
                or Ex parte Bowles, 23 USPQ2d 1015, 1017 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991),                           
                which applies the claim construction standard of Papst-Motoren.                                 
                                                       9                                                        

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013