Ex Parte BROWNING et al - Page 59



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

                holding of Eggert has not been overruled by North American Container, or                      
                any other Federal Circuit decision after Eggert, because our reviewing court                  
                has not since ruled on a recapture case where a different limitation is                       
                submitted as a substitute for a limitation that was added in response to a                    
                rejection during the original prosecution.  In other words, the Eggert facts                  
                fell within category 3(b) as described by Clement.  The North American                        
                Container facts fell within category 3(a) as described by Clement -- i.e., in                 
                the reissue claims the limitation added during prosecution was missing in its                 
                entirety.10                                                                                   
                      I have no disagreement with the majority’s rejection of the Eggert                      
                rationale that is reproduced at part IV.A.(5) supra.  The statements from                     
                Eggert are mere dicta that were never followed by the Office.  However, in                    
                relation to the cited Standard Operating Procedure of the Board (SOP2.VI.D                    
                (Rev. 6, Aug. 2005)), the decision supported by the Eggert opinion is not                     
                                                                                                              
                10 An argument can be made that in North American Container the limitation                    
                requiring that the “inner walls” be “generally convex” (patent claim 1) was                   
                substituted by a related limitation in the reissue claim (29), “wherein the                   
                diameter of said re-entrant portion is in the range of 5% to 30% of the                       
                overall diameter of said side wall.”  North American Container at 1341-42,                    
                75 USPQ2d at 1550.  The “re-entrant portion” included the lowermost points                    
                of the inner walls.  Id. at 1348, 75 USPQ2d at 1555.  However, it appears the                 
                claims were not argued as being materially narrowed in other respects to                      
                avoid recapture.  See id. at 1349-40, 75 USPQ2d at 1556.  Moreover, the                       
                “re-entrant portion” limitation in the reissue claim was already present in                   
                patent claims depending from a patent claim containing the limitation                         
                requiring that the inner wall portions be “generally convex” (see id. at 1341-                
                42, 75 USPQ2d at 1549-50), and thus would not have been the type of                           
                substitute found to avoid recapture in Eggert or Ball Corp.                                   
                                                    - 59 -                                                    

Page:  Previous  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013