Ex Parte Wellerdieck et al - Page 2

                Appeal  2007-1119                                                                            
                Application 10/200,207                                                                       
                A. Introduction                                                                              
                      Applicants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of                    
                claims 1–25, all the claims of their application for reissue of U.S. Patent                  
                6,248,219 B1 ("219 patent").  We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.                      
                Oral argument was heard on 2 May 2007 before a court reporter.                               
                      This appears to be a case of first impression, in which Applicants seek                
                to expand the term of their patent, but not to change the scope of the                       
                patented subject matter.  Specifically, Applicants argue that had they filed                 
                continuing applications under 37 C.F.R. § 1.53(b) rather than erroneously                    
                under § 1.53(d), they would have been granted a patent having a term of                      
                17 years from the date of issue, that being greater than the term of 20 years                
                from the earliest application specifically referenced in their application, as               
                provided for by 35 U.S.C. § 154(c).                                                          
                      We hold that Applicants are not entitled, under 35 U.S.C. § 251, to the                
                relief they seek.  In particular, Applicants are precluded by the statute from               
                expanding the term of their originally issued patent.  Moreover, we hold that                
                § 154(c) would not have applied to continuing applications filed under                       
                Rule 53(b), so the specific correction they seek would not yield the                         
                expanded term they believe they are entitled to.  Finally, even if the relief                
                they seek were available under the statute and would yield the expanded                      
                term they want, Applicants have failed to show that the choices they made to                 
                file continuing applications under Rule 53(d) were actually inadvertent                      
                errors correctable by reissue.                                                               
                      Accordingly, the Examiner's rejection is AFFIRMED.                                     



                                                     2                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013