Appeal 2007-1119
Application 10/200,207
Prosecution History of the 207 Reissue Application
15. Applicants, in their Reissue Application Declaration ("Reissue
Declaration"), filed 23 July 2003, state:
We verily believe the original patent to be wholly or
partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of the patentees
claiming less than they had the right to claim in the patent.
Applicants seek to claim the benefit of the full term of the
original patent, which term was abridged by the erroneous
filing of a Continued Prosecution Application under
37 C.F.R. § 1.53(d) instead of a continuing application under
37 C.F.R. § 1.53(b), thereby subject[ing] the original patent to
the twenty-year patent term under 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2).
All errors corrected in this reissue application arose
without any deceptive intention on the part of the applicants.
(Reissue Declaration at 2.)
16. No other statement or explanation of how the error occurred appears
to be in the record before us.
17. The record of the prosecution history does not appear to be
remarkable, and Applicants have not raised any procedural complaints by
petition.
18. The Examiner appears to have acted with exceptional promptness
whenever the reissue application was placed in the Examiner's docket.
The Examiner's Rejection
19. The Examiner, relying on the guidance provided by the Manual of
Examining Procedure ("MPEP") § 1405 (8th Ed., apparently Revision 2,
published May 2004) rejected the claims on the basis that the error alleged in
the Reissue Application Declaration was not an error correctable by reissue.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013