Appeal 2007-0700
Application 09/159,509
Patent 5,559,995
into the reissue claim.” In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 1469, 45 USPQ2d
1161, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
When a reissue claim is broader than a canceled or amended claim in
some aspects, but narrower in others, Clement instructs us in a way to
determine whether the surrendered subject matter has crept into the reissue
claim. The Federal Circuit in Clement referred to two earlier cases as
examples of how the recapture rule relates to broad and narrow aspects of
reissue claims as compared to claims in the original application.
In Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 27 USPQ2d 1521
(Fed. Cir. 1993), the issued claim was directed to a condom catheter, reciting
an adhesive means that was transferred from an outer to an inner surface
without turning the condom inside-out. In making amendments to the claim,
the applicant argued that none of the applied references showed the transfer
of adhesive from the outer surface to the inner surface as the sheath is rolled
up and then unrolled. The reissue claim eliminated the limitation that
adhesive was transferred from the outer to the inner layer, making the
reissue claim broader than the canceled claim in this aspect. The reissue
claim was also narrower than the canceled claim because it recited that the
catheter included a thin, flexible cylindrical material rolled outwardly upon
itself to form a single roll. Although the “flexible” and “single roll”
limitations made the reissue claim narrower than both the canceled and
issued claims, the reissue claim did not escape the recapture rule because the
limitations did not “materially narrow the claim.” In re Clement at 1469-70,
- 55 -
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013