Appeal 2007-0493
Application 10/289,967
Patent 6,144,380
surrendered subject matter since this subject matter, having been claimed
and then surrendered during original prosecution, could not have been
overlooked.
In Pannu, the Federal Circuit stated that “[t]he narrowing aspect of the
claim on reissue … was not related to the shape of the haptics, but rather the
positioning and dimensions of the snag resistant means [, and] [t]herefore,
the reissued claims were not narrowed in any material respect compared to
their broadening.” 258 F.3d at 1372, 59 USPQ2d at 1600-01. If read in a
vacuum, this statement might appear to support a contrary result to our
analysis. However, the court’s opinion in general and this statement in
particular must be read, not in a vacuum but, in light of the facts of the case
on appeal.
The reissued claim in Pannu was narrowed by requiring the snag
resistant means to be “at least three times greater” than the width of the
haptics and by requiring the snag resistant means to be “substantially
coplanar” with the haptics. 258 F.3d at 1372, 59 USPQ2d at 1600. As
revealed in the underlying District Court decision, these same or similar
limitations were present in claims throughout prosecution of the original
patent application. Pannu v. Storz Instruments, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 1304,
1308 (S.D Fla. 2000). For this reason, the District Court held that the
recapture rule had not been avoided because the narrowing limitations were
not overlooked aspects of the invention and did not materially narrow the
claim. Id., 106 F. Supp 2d at 1308-09, citing for authority Hester Indus.,
- 41 -
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013