Ex Parte BROWNING et al - Page 41



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

                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,                       

                                                    - 41 -                                                    

Page:  Previous  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013