Ex Parte BROWNING et al - Page 32



                Appeal 2007-0700                                                                              
                Application 09/159,509                                                                        
                Patent 5,559,995                                                                              

                      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                               

                                                    - 32 -                                                    

Page:  Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013