Appeal 2007-3920
Application 90/007,025
Res Judicata
As an initial matter, we treat the "res judicata"2 argument on which
the examiner and Rexnord expend most of their efforts. The term "res
judicata" is ambiguous. In most contemporary legal contexts, the term is
now taken to mean "claim preclusion". The alternative meaning—issue
preclusion—has different considerations, so it is important to make clear
which of the two doctrines is intended.3 Neither the examiner nor Rexnord
provided much assistance on this critical point.
Claim preclusion is a problematic concept in the context of ex parte
prosecution.4 Unfortunately, neither the examiner nor Rexnord discuss the
considerable case law on point. Rexnord instead urges a waiver theory
based on an expansive reading of a 1927 Supreme Court case5 that
completely overlooks the significance of subsequent legislation creating a
reexamination process.6
Most critically, neither the examiner nor Rexnord provided the earlier
briefing or decision that are said to provide the basis of this argument. We
2 United Techs. Corp. v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 189 F.3d 1338,
1343, 51 USPQ2d 1838, 1841 (Fed. Cir. 1999); but see Migra v. Warren
City Sch. Dist. Bd., 465 U.S. 75, 77 n.1 (1984)
3 Hallco Mfg. Co. v. Foster, 256 F.3d 1290, 1294, 59 USPQ2d 1346, 1349
(Fed. Cir. 2001).
4 In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 212 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981); In re
Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974); In re Citron,
326 F.2d 418, 140 USPQ 220 (CCPA 1964).
5 Br. 3-4, citing Overland Motor Co. v. Packard Motor Co., 274 U.S. 417,
421-22 (1927) and In re Kaghen, 387 F.2d 398, 156 USPQ 130 (CCPA
1967), which itself relies on Overland Motor Co.
6 Pub. L. 96-517, Sec. 1, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3015.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013