Ex Parte Shwarts et al - Page 45



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

                   prosecution where claims and arguments can change depending on the                                               
                   circumstances, e.g., prior art applied and amendments to claims.  It is from a                                   
                   fixed perspective that the public (not the patentee) must make an analysis of                                    
                   what the patentee surrendered during prosecution.  Moreover, Appellants                                          
                   (not the public) control what amendments and arguments are presented                                             
                   during prosecution.  When an amendment or argument is presented, it is the                                       
                   Appellants that should be in the best position to analyze what subject matter                                    
                   (i.e., territory to use the Supreme Court’s language) is being surrendered (or                                   
                   explain why the reissue claims are materially narrowed).                                                         
                           Our belief is supported by what appears to be dicta in MBO                                               
                   Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Company, 474 F.3d 1323, 1331-32,                                       
                   81 USPQ2d 1661, 1666-67 (Fed. Cir. 2007):                                                                        
                           The recapture rule is a limitation on the ability of patentees to                                        
                           broaden their patents after issuance.    . . . .  Section 251 is                                         
                           “remedial in nature, based on fundamental principles of equity                                           
                           and fairness, and should be construed liberally.”  However, the                                          
                           remedial function of the statute is limited.  Material which has                                         
                           been surrendered in order to obtain issuance cannot be                                                   
                           reclaimed via Section 251: . . .  It is critical to avoid allowing                                       
                           surrendered matter to creep back into the issued patent, since                                           
                           competitors and the public are on notice of the surrender and                                            
                           may have come to rely on the consequent limitations on claim                                             
                           scope.    . . . (“[T]he recapture rule ... ensur[es] the ability of the                                  
                           public to rely on a patent’s public record.”). The public’s                                              
                           reliance interest provides a justification for the recapture rule                                        
                           that is independent of the likelihood that the surrendered                                               
                           territory was already covered by prior art or otherwise                                                  
                           unpatentable.  The recapture rule thus serves the same policy as                                         
                           does the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel:  both operate,                                        

                                                              - 45 -                                                                

Page:  Previous  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013