Appeal No. 2007-0441
Reissue Application 10/155,945
Patent 5,311,959
1 Reissue application
2 At some point, the patent owner took note of the patent and essentially
3 discovered that: “Ops. There is a loose end with claim 1.”
4 To overcome, the loose end, the patent owner filed the reissue application on
5 appeal.
6 Unfortunately for the patent owner, the reissue application was filed more
7 than two years after the patent issued.
8 The reissue oath was signed by one John J. Prizzi, who is said to be
9 Assistant Secretary of Kennametal PC, Inc.
10 At this point, we note that Kennametal PC, Inc. is a different name from the
11 real party in interest identified in the Appeal Brief. We will assume Kennametal
12 PC, Inc. and Kennametal, Inc. identified in the Appeal Brief are the same entity or
13 that any difference is irrelevant.
14 The bottom line is that the reissue application was filed by the assignee and
15 the inventor did not sign the reissue oath.
16 After stating that the patent may be partly inoperative or invalid because of
17 an error said to have arisen without deceptive intention on the part of the
18 application, the reissue oath of 24 May 2002, states:
19 That the basis for the inoperativeness is by reason of the
20 patentee failing to particularly point out and distinctly
21 claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as
22 his invention, 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph. Claim 1
23 recites that “the trough and the two uppermost slanted
24 surfaces being substantially parallel and substantially
25 orthogonal along their entire length to the two flat
26 parallel sides,” does not particularly point out and
27 distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the
28 invention. Accordingly, this claim may be invalid.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013