Appeal 2007-1119
Application 10/200,207
Even if the expanded patent term sought by Applicants were not
barred by the plain language of § 251, the specific remedy Applicants seek,
namely, correcting their filings under Rule 53(d) to filings under Rule 53(b),
would not afford them the relief they seek. Their interpretation of 35 U.S.C.
§ 154(c) is incorrect.
Section 154(c) reads in relevant part:
The term of a patent that is in force on or that results from an
application filed before the date that is 6 months after the date
of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act shall
be the greater of the 20-year term as provided in subsection (a),
or 17 years from grant, subject to any terminal disclaimers.
35 U.S.C. § 154(c)(1). The Uruguay Round Agreements Act was enacted on
8 December 1994. Thus § 154(c) applies to patents that result from
applications filed before 8 May 1995. The original 256 application is such
an application because it was filed on 4 April 1995. Had a patent issued
from the 256 application, its term would have been 17 years from the date of
issue, because that term is greater than 20 years from the date of the earliest
application specifically referenced under section 120, 121, or 365(c) of
title 35, United States Code, as provided in subsection (a) of § 154.
Patent term is set in 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2), which reads:
Subject to the payment of fees under this title, such grant shall
be for a term beginning of the date on which the patent issues
and ending 20 years from the date on which the application for
the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application
contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or
applications under section 120, 121 or 365(c) of this title, from
the date on which the earliest such application was filed.
but not clear, that Applicants are seeking a broadening Reissue. We do not
base our decision on this point.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013