Appeal 2007-0040
Application 10/170,069
Patent 6,073,699
(10)
Relevance of prosecution history
“Surrendered subject matter” is defined in connection with
prosecution history estoppel in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo
Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 733-34, 122 S. Ct. 1831, 1838, 62 USPQ2d
1705, 1710-11 (2002) (Festo II):
The doctrine of equivalents allows the patentee to claim those
insubstantial alterations that were not captured in drafting the
original patent claim but which could be created through trivial
changes. When, however, the patentee originally claimed the
subject matter alleged to infringe but then narrowed the claim in
response to a rejection, he may not argue that the surrendered
territory comprised unforeseen subject matter that should be
deemed equivalent to the literal claims of the issued patent. On
the contrary, “[b]y the amendment [the patentee] recognized
and emphasized the difference between the two phrases[,] ...
and [t]he difference which [the patentee] thus disclaimed must
be regarded as material.” Exhibit Supply Co. v. Ace Patents
Corp., 315 U.S. 126, 136-37, 62 S. Ct. 513, 518-19 [52 USPQ
275, 279-80] (1942).
Festo II goes on to comment, 535 U.S. at 737-41, 122 S. Ct. at 1840-
42, 62 USPQ2d at 1712-14:
[Prosecution history estoppel’s] reach requires an examination
of the subject matter surrendered by the narrowing amendment.
[A] complete bar [would avoid] this inquiry by establishing a
per se rule; but that approach is inconsistent with the purpose of
applying the estoppel in the first place-to hold the inventor to
the representations made during the application process and to
the inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the
amendment (emphasis added).
- 27 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013