Ex Parte Shwarts et al - Page 36



                   Appeal 2007-0493                                                                                                 
                   Application 10/289,967                                                                                           
                   Patent 6,144,380                                                                                                 

                           in the prosecution history record.  Festo [I], 234 F.3d at 586 &                                         
                           n.6; see also Pioneer Magnetics, 330 F.3d at 1356 (stating that                                          
                           only the prosecution history record may be considered in                                                 
                           determining whether a patentee has overcome the Warner-                                                  
                           Jenkinson presumption, so as not to undermine the public                                                 
                           notice function served by that record).  If the patentee                                                 
                           successfully establishes that the amendment was not for a                                                
                           reason of patentability, then prosecution history estoppel does                                          
                           not apply.                                                                                               
                                                                   ***                                                              
                           . . . By its very nature, objective unforeseeability depends on                                          
                           underlying factual issues relating to, for example, the state of                                         
                           the art and the understanding of a hypothetical person of                                                
                           ordinary skill in the art at the time of the amendment.                                                  
                           Therefore, in determining whether an alleged equivalent would                                            
                           have been unforeseeable, a district court may hear expert                                                
                           testimony and consider other extrinsic evidence relating to the                                          
                           relevant factual inquiries.                                                                              
                           . . . As we have held in the Warner-Jenkinson context, that                                              
                           reason should be discernible from the prosecution history                                                
                           record, if the public notice function of a patent and its                                                
                           prosecution history is to have significance.  See id. at 1356                                            
                           (“Only the public record of the patent prosecution, the                                                  
                           prosecution history, can be a basis for [the reason for the                                              
                           amendment to the claim].  Otherwise, the public notice function                                          
                           of the patent record would be undermined.”); Festo [I], 234                                              
                           F.3d at 586 (“In order to give due deference to public notice                                            
                           considerations under the Warner-Jenkinson framework, a patent                                            
                           holder seeking to establish the reason for an amendment must                                             
                           base his arguments solely upon the public record of the patent’s                                         
                           prosecution, i.e., the patent’s prosecution history.  To hold                                            
                           otherwise--that is, to allow a patent holder to rely on evidence                                         
                           not in the public record to establish a reason for an amendment-                                         
                           -would undermine the public notice function of the patent                                                

                                                              - 36 -                                                                

Page:  Previous  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013