Source: http://research.freepatentsonline.com/mpep/chapter-2000
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:25:20+00:00

Document:
This Chapter deals with the duties owed toward the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by the inventor and every other individual who is substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor or the inventor’s assignee. These duties, of candor and good faith and disclosure, have been codified in 37 CFR 1.56, as promulgated pursuant to carrying out the duties of the Director under Sections 2, 3, 131, and 132 of Title 35 of the United States Code.
(3) A prima facie case of unpatentability is established when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof standard, giving each term in the claim its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, and before any consideration is given to evidence which may be submitted in an attempt to establish a contrary conclusion of patentability.
37 CFR 1.56 defines the duty to disclose information to the Office.
37 CFR 1.56(a) states that the “duty of candor and good faith” is owed “in dealing with the Office” and that all associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application have a “duty to disclose to the Office” material information. This duty “in dealing with” and “to” the Office extends, of course, to all dealings which such individuals have with the Office, and is not limited to representations to or dealings with the examiner. For example, the duty would extend to proceedings before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and the Office of the Commissioner for Patents.
The Office strives to issue valid patents. The Office has both an obligation not to unjustly issue patents and an obligation not to unjustly deny patents. Innovation and technological advancement are best served when an inventor is issued a patent with the scope of protection that is deserved. The rules as adopted serve to remind individuals associated with the preparation and prosecution of patent applications of their duty of candor and good faith in their dealings with the Office, and will aid the Office in receiving, in a timely manner, the information it needs to carry out effective and efficient examination of patent applications.
The amendment to 37 CFR 1.56 was proposed to address criticism concerning a perceived lack of certainty in the materiality standard. The rule as promulgated will provide greater clarity and hopefully minimize the burden of litigation on the question of inequitable conduct before the Office, while providing the Office with the information necessary for effective and efficient examination of patent applications. 37 CFR 1.56 has been amended to present a clearer and more objective definition of what information the Office considers material to patentability. The rules do not define fraud or inequitable conduct which have elements both of materiality and of intent.
The definition of materiality in 37 CFR 1.56 does not impose substantial new burdens on applicants, but is intended to provide the Office with the information it needs to make a proper and independent determination on patentability. It is the patent examiner who should make the determination after considering all the facts involved in the particular case.
The term “information” as used in 37 CFR 1.56 means all of the kinds of information required to be disclosed and includes any information which is “material to patentability.” Materiality is defined in 37 CFR 1.56(b) and discussed herein at MPEP § 2001.05. In addition to prior art such as patents and publications, 37 CFR 1.56 includes, for example, information on enablement, possible prior public uses, sales, offers to sell, derived knowledge, prior invention by another, inventorship conflicts, and the like. “Materiality is not limited to prior art but embraces any information that a reasonable examiner would be substantially likely to consider important in deciding whether to allow an application to issue as a patent.” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 326 F.3d 1226, 1234, 66 USPQ2d 1481, 1486 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original) (finding article which was not prior art to be material to enablement issue).
The term “information” is intended to be all encompassing, similar to the scope of the term as discussed with respect to 37 CFR 1.291(a) (see MPEP § 1901.02).37 CFR 1.56(a) also states: “The Office encourages applicants to carefully examine: (1) prior art cited in search reports of a foreign patent office in a counterpart application, and (2) the closest information over which individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application believe any pending claim patentably defines, to make sure that any material information contained therein is disclosed to the Office.” The sentence does not create any new duty for applicants, but is placed in the text of the rule as helpful guidance to individuals who file and prosecute patent applications.
37 CFR 1.56 provides that the duty of disclosure can be met by submitting information to the Office in the manner prescribed by 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 . See MPEP § 609. Applicants are provided certainty as to when information will be considered, and applicants will be informed when information is not considered. Note, however, that the Office may order or conduct reexamination proceedings based on prior art that was cited/considered in any prior related Office proceeding. See MPEP § 2242 and MPEP § 2258.01 .
The Office does not believe that courts should, or will, find violations of the duty of disclosure because of unintentional noncompliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. If the noncompliance is intentional, however, the applicant will have assumed the risk that the failure to submit the information in a manner that will result in its being considered by the examiner may be held to be a violation.
The Office does not anticipate any significant change in the quantity of information cited to the Office. Presumably, applicants will continue to submit information for consideration by the Office in applications rather than making and relying on their own determinations of materiality. An incentive remains to submit the information to the Office because it will result in a strengthened patent and will avoid later questions of materiality and intent to deceive. In addition, the new rules will actually facilitate the filing of information since the burden of submitting information to the Office has been reduced by eliminating, in most cases, the requirement for a concise statement of the relevance of each item of information listed in an information disclosure statement. It should also be noted that 37 CFR 1.97(h) states that the filing of an information disclosure statement shall not be considered to be an admission that the information cited in the statement is, or is considered to be, material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56.
Under the rule, information is not material unless it comes within the definition of 37 CFR 1.56(b)(1) or (2). If information is not material, there is no duty to disclose the information to the Office. Thus, it is theoretically possible for applicants to draft claims and a specification to avoid a prima facie case of obviousness over a reference and then to be able to withhold the reference from the examiner. The Office believes that most applicants will wish to submit the information, however, even though they may not be required to do so, to strengthen the patent and avoid the risks of an incorrect judgment on their part on materiality or that it may be held that there was an intent to deceive the Office.
All individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 (reproduced in MPEP § 2001.01) have a duty to disclose to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office all material information they are aware of regardless of the source of or how they become aware of the information. See Brasseler, U.S.A. I, L.P. v. Stryker Sales Corp., 267 F.3d 1370, 1383, 60 USPQ2d 1482, 1490 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Once an attorney, or an applicant has notice that information exists that appears material and questionable, that person cannot ignore that notice in an effort to avoid his or her duty to disclose.”). Materiality controls whether information must be disclosed to the Office, not the circumstances under which or the source from which the information is obtained. If material, the information must be disclosed to the Office. The duty to disclose material information extends to information such individuals are aware of prior to or at the time of filing the application or become aware of during the prosecution thereof.
Such individuals may be or become aware of material information from various sources such as, for example, co-workers, trade shows, communications from or with competitors, potential infringers, or other third parties, related foreign applications (see MPEP § 2001.06(a)), prior or copending United States patent applications (see MPEP § 2001.06(b)), related litigation (see MPEP § 2001.06(c)) and preliminary examination searches.
[W]e think that it is unfair to the busy examiner, no matter how diligent and well informed he may be, to assume that he retains details of every pending file in his mind when he is reviewing a particular application . . . [T]he applicant has the burden of presenting the examiner with a complete and accurate record to support the allowance of letters patent.
Accordingly, the individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 cannot assume that the examiner of a particular application is necessarily aware of other applications which are “material to patentability” of the application in question, but must instead bring such other applications to the attention of the examiner. See Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For example, if a particular inventor has different applications pending in which similar subject matter but patentably indistinct claims are present that fact must be disclosed to the examiner of each of the involved applications. Similarly, the prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are “material to patentability” of the subsequent application.See Dayco Prod., 329 F.3d at 1369, 66 USPQ2d at 1808.
If the application under examination is identified as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an earlier application, the examiner will consider the prior art cited in the earlier application.See MPEP § 609. The examiner must indicate in the first Office action whether the prior art in a related earlier application has been reviewed. Accordingly, no separate citation of the same prior art need be made in the later application.
Where the subject matter for which a patent is being sought is or has been involved in litigation, the existence of such litigation and any other material information arising therefrom must be brought to the attention of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Examples of such material information include evidence of possible prior public use or sales, questions of inventorship, prior art, allegations of “fraud,” “inequitable conduct,” and “violation of duty of disclosure.” Another example of such material information is any assertion that is made during litigation which is contradictory to assertions made to the examiner. Environ Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 43 USPQ2d 1288, 1291 (E.D. Pa. 1997). Such information might arise during litigation in, for example, pleadings, admissions, discovery including interrogatories, depositions, and other documents and testimony.
Where a patent for which reissue is being sought is, or has been, involved in litigation which raised a question material to examination of the reissue application, such as the validity of the patent, or any allegation of “fraud,” “inequitable conduct,” or “violation of duty of disclosure,” the existence of such litigation must be brought to the attention of the Office by the applicant at the time of, or shortly after, filing the application, either in the reissue oath or declaration, or in a separate paper, preferably accompanying the application, as filed. Litigation begun after filing of the reissue application should be promptly brought to the attention of the Office. The details and documents from the litigation, insofar as they are “material to patentability” of the reissue application as defined in 37 CFR 1.56, should accompany the application as filed, or be submitted as promptly thereafter as possible. See Critikon, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc., 120 F.3d 1253, 1258, 1259, 43 USPQ2d 1666, 1670-71 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (patent held unenforceable due to inequitable conduct based on patentee's failure to disclose a relevant reference and for failing to disclose ongoing litigation).
For example, the defenses raised against validity of the patent, or charges of “fraud” or “inequitable conduct” in the litigation, would normally be “material to the examination” of the reissue application. It would, in most situations, be appropriate to bring such defenses to the attention of the Office by filing in the reissue application a copy of the court papers raising such defenses. At a minimum, the applicant should call the attention of the Office to the litigation, the existence and the nature of any allegations relating to validity and/or “fraud,” or “inequitable conduct” relating to the original patent, and the nature of litigation materials relating to these issues. Enough information should be submitted to clearly inform the Office of the nature of these issues so that the Office can intelligently evaluate the need for asking for further materials in the litigation. See MPEP § 1442.04.
If litigation papers of a live litigation relating to a pending reissue application are filed with the Office, the litigation papers along with the reissue application file should be forwarded to the Solicitor’s Office for processing. If the litigation is not live, the litigation papers are processed by the Technology Center assigned the reissue application.
Where claims are copied or substantially copied from a patent, 37 CFR 1.607(c) requires applicant shall, at the time he or she presents the claim(s), identify the patent and the numbers of the patent claims. Clearly, the information required by 37 CFR 1.607(c) as to the source of copied claims is material information under37 CFR 1.56 and failure to inform the USPTO of such information may violate the duty of disclosure.
37 C.F.R. 1.2 Business to be transacted in writing.
(b) Since each file must be complete in itself, a separate copy of every paper to be filed in a patent or trademark application, patent file, trademark registration file, or other proceeding must be furnished for each file to which the paper pertains, even though the contents of the papers filed in two or more files may be identical. The filing of duplicate copies of correspondence in the file of an application, patent, trademark registration file, or other proceeding should be avoided, except in situations in which the Office requires the filing of duplicate copies. The Office may dispose of duplicate copies of correspondence in the file of an application, patent, trademark registration file, or other proceeding.
In reissue applications, applicants are encouraged to file information disclosure statements at the time of filing or within 2 months of filing, since reissue applications are taken up “special” (see MPEP § 1442 and § 1442.03). However, in a reissue where waiver of the normal 2 month delay period of 37 CFR 1.176is being requested (see MPEP § 1441), the statement should be filed at the time of filing the application, or as soon thereafter as possible.
Where a patentee or any member of the public (including private persons, corporate entities, and government agencies) has prior art patents or printed publications which the patentee or member of the public desires to have made of record in the patent file, patentee or such member of the public may file a citation of such prior art with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 301 and 37 CFR 1.501. Such citations and papers will be entered without comment by the Office. The Office generally does not consider the citation and papers but merely places them of record in the patent file. Information which may be filed under 37 CFR 1.501 is limited to prior art patents and printed publications. Any citations which include items other than patents and printed publications will not be entered in the patent file. See MPEP § 2202 through § 2208.
Where any person, including patentee, has prior art patents and/or printed publications which said person desires to have the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office consider after a patent has issued, such person may file a request for ex parte reexamination of the patent (see 37 CFR 1.510 and MPEP § 2209 through § 2220). For a request for inter partes reexamination, see 37 CFR 1.913 and MPEP § 2609 through § 2620.
While it is not appropriate to attempt to set forth procedures by which attorneys, agents, and other individuals may ensure compliance with the duty of disclosure, the items listed below are offered as examples of possible procedures which could help avoid problems with the duty of disclosure. Though compliance with these procedures may not be required, they are presented as helpful suggestions for avoiding duty of disclosure problems.
The use of these types of aids would appear to be most helpful, though not required, in identifying prior art and may well help the attorney and the client avoid or more easily explain a potentially embarrassing and harmful “fraud” allegation.
3. It is desirable to ask questions of the inventor about the disclosure of the best mode. Make sure that the best mode is described. See MPEP § 2165 - § 2165.04.
6. It may be useful to evaluate the materiality of prior art or other information from the viewpoint of whether it is the closest prior art or other information. This will tend to put the prior art or other information in better perspective. See Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 1374, 54 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“A withheld reference may be highly material when it discloses a more complete combination of relevant features, even if those features are before the patent examiner in other references.” (citations omitted)). However, 37 CFR 1.56 may still require the submission of prior art or other information which is not as close as that of record.
8. Care should be taken to see that inaccurate statements or inaccurate experiments are not introduced into the specification, either inadvertently or intentionally. For example, stating that an experiment “was run” or “was conducted” when in fact the experiment was not run or conducted is a misrepresentation of the facts. No results should be represented as actual results unless they have actually been achieved. Paper or prophetic examples should not be described using the past tense. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Promega Corp., 323 F.3d 1354, 1367, 66 USPQ2d 1385, 1394 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see alsoMPEP § 608.01(p) and§ 707.07(l). Also, misrepresentations can occur when experiments which were run or conducted are inaccurately reported in the specification, e.g., an experiment is changed by leaving out one or more ingredients. See Steierman v. Connelly, 192 USPQ 433 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1975); 192 USPQ 446 (Bd. Pat. Int. 1976).
9. Do not rely on the examiner of a particular application to be aware of other applications belonging to the same applicant or assignee. It is desirable to call such applications to the attention of the examiner even if there is only a question that they might be “material to patentability” of the application the examiner is considering. See Dayco Prod., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (contrary decision of another examiner reviewing substantially similar claims is ‘material’; copending application may be ‘material’ even though it cannot result in a shorter patent term, when it could affect the rights of the patentee to assign the issued patents). It is desirable to be particularly careful that prior art or other information in one application is cited to the examiner in other applications to which it would be material. Do not assume that an examiner will necessarily remember, when examining a particular application, other applications which the examiner is examining, or has examined. A “lapse on the part of the examiner does not excuse the applicant.”KangaROOS U.S.A., Inc. v. Caldor, Inc., 778 F.2d 1571, 1576, 228 USPQ 32, 35 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP § 2001.06(b).
10. When in doubt, it is desirable and safest to submit information. Even though the attorney, agent, or applicant doesn’t consider it necessarily material, someone else may see it differently and embarrassing questions can be avoided. The court in U.S. Industries v. Norton Co., 210 USPQ 94, 107 (N.D. N.Y. 1980) stated “In short, the question of relevancy in close cases, should be left to the examiner and not the applicant.” See also LaBounty Mfg., Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 22 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
11. It may be desirable to submit information about prior uses and sales even if it appears that they may have been experimental, not involve the specifically claimed invention, or not encompass a completed invention. See Hycor Corp. v. The Schlueter Co., 740 F.2d 1529, 1534-37, 222 USPQ 553, 557-559 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also LaBounty Mfg., Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 958 F.2d 1066, 22 USPQ2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
12. Submit information promptly. An applicant, attorney, or agent who is aware of prior art or other information and its significance should submit same early in prosecution, e.g., before the first action by the examiner, and not wait until after allowance. Potentially material information discovered late in the prosecution should be immediately submitted. That the issue fee has been paid is no reason or excuse for failing to submit information. See Elmwood Liquid Products, Inc. v. Singleton Packing Corp., 328 F. Supp. 974, 170 USPQ 398 (M.D. Fla. 1971).
14. Watch out for continuation-in-part applications where intervening material information or documents may exist; particularly watch out for foreign patents and publications related to the parent application and dated more than 1 year before the filing date of the CIP. These and other intervening documents may be material information. See In re Ruscetta, 255 F.2d 687, 690-91, 118 USPQ 101, 104 (CCPA 1958); In re van Langenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 173 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1972); Chromalloy American Corp. v. Alloy Surfaces Co., 339 F. Supp. 859, 173 USPQ 295 (D. Del. 1972).
15. Watch out for information that might be deemed to be prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) and (g).
Prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) may be available under 35 U.S.C. 103. See OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1401, 43 USPQ2d 1641, 1644 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(35 U.S.C. “102(f) is a prior art provision for purposes of § 103”); Dale Electronics v. R.C.L. Electronics, 488 F.2d 382, 386, 180 USPQ 225, 227 (1st. Cir. 1973); and Ex parte Andresen, 212 USPQ 100, 102 (Bd. App. 1981).
Note also that evidence of prior invention under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) may be available under 35 U.S.C. 103, such as in In re Bass, 474 F.2d 1276, 177 USPQ 178 (CCPA 1973).
Note 35 U.S.C. 103(c) disqualifies 35 U.S.C. 102(f)/103 or 102(g)/103 prior art which was, at the time the second invention was made, owned by or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the person who owned the first invention. Further note that 35 U.S.C. 103(c) disqualifies 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103 prior art for applications filed on or after November 29, 1999. See MPEP § 706.02(l) - § 706.02(l)(2).
16. Watch out for information picked up by the inventors and others at conventions, plant visits, in-house reviews, etc. See, for example, Dale Electronics v. R.C.L. Electronics, 488 F.2d 382, 386-87, 180 USPQ 225, 228 (1st Cir. 1973).
18. Finally, if information was specifically considered and discarded as not material, this fact might be recorded in an attorney’s file or applicant’s file, including the reason for discarding it. If judgment might have been bad or something might have been overlooked inadvertently, a note made at the time of evaluation might be an invaluable aid in explaining that the mistake was honest and excusable. Though such records are not required, they could be helpful in recalling and explaining actions in the event of a question of “fraud” or “inequitable conduct” raised at a later time.
Under 37 CFR 1.56, each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty to disclose on his or her own initiative information material to patentability under 37 CFR 1.56. By contrast, under 37 CFR 1.105, an examiner or other Office employee is authorized to require, from parties identified in 37 CFR 1.56, information reasonably necessary to examine or treat a matter in an application. The provisions of 37 CFR 1.105 are detailed in MPEP § 704 et seq. The criteria for requiring information under 37 CFR 1.56, i.e., materiality to the patentability of claimed subject matter, is substantially higher than the criteria for requiring information under 37 CFR 1.105, i.e., reasonable necessity to the examination of the application. See, e.g., Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 280 F.Supp.2d 512, 515-61 (E.D. Va 2003)(“Beyond that which a patent applicant is duty-bound to disclose pursuant to 37 CFR 1.56, an examiner may require the production of ‘such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the matter.’”). Thus, information required by the examiner pursuant to 37 CFR 1.105 would not necessarily be considered material to patentability in itself, but would be necessary to obtain a complete record from which a determination of patentability will be made.
Determination of inequitable conduct issues requires an evaluation of the intent of the party involved. While some court decisions have held that intent may be inferred in some circumstances, consideration of the good faith of the party, or lack thereof, is often required. In several court decisions, a high level of proof of intent to mislead the Office was required in order to prove inequitable conduct under 37 CFR 1.56. See In re Harito, 847 F.2d 801, 6 USPQ2d 1930 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and FMC Corp. v. Manitowoc Co., 835 F.2d 1411, 5 USPQ2d 1112 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The Office is not the best forum in which to determine whether there was an “intent to mislead”; such intent is best determined when the trier of facts can observe demeanor of witnesses subjected to cross-examination. A court, with subpoena power, is presently the best forum to consider duty of disclosure issues under the present evidentiary standard for finding an “intent to mislead.” The court proceeding involves two participating adverse parties. This is not the case in the Office, since even “protesting” parties are not permitted to participate under the rules. Also, it is the courts and not the Office that are in the best position to fashion an equitable remedy to fit the precise facts in those cases where inequitable conduct is established. Furthermore, inequitable conduct is not set by statute as a criteria for patentability but rather is a judicial application of the doctrine of unclean hands which is appropriate to be handled by the courts rather than by an administrative body. Because of the lack of tools in the Office to deal with this issue and because of its sensitive nature and potential impact on a patent, Office determinations generally will not deter subsequent litigation of the same issue in the courts on appeal or in separate litigation. Office determinations would significantly add to the expense and time involved in obtaining a patent with little or no benefit to the patent owner or any other parties with an interest.
Accordingly, the Office does not investigate and reject original or reissue applications under 37 CFR 1.56. Likewise, the Office will not comment upon duty of disclosure issues which are brought to the attention of the Office in original or reissue applications except to note in the application, in appropriate circumstances, that such issues are no longer considered by the Office during its examination of patent applications. Examination of lack of deceptive intent in reissue applications will continue but without any investigation of inequitable conduct issues. Applicant’s statement of lack of deceptive intent normally will be accepted as dispositive except in special circumstances such as an admission or judicial determination of fraud or inequitable conduct. See notice published in the Official Gazette at 1095 O.G. 16 (October 11, 1988). See also MPEP § 2022.05.
Issues of fraud and/or inequitable conduct in an interference proceeding before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) will be considered by the Board if they are raised by way of preliminary motion for judgment under 37 CFR 1.633(a). The motion must be filed during the period set for filing preliminary motions (37 CFR 1.636(a)), or good cause (37 CFR 1.655(b)) must be shown as to why the issues of fraud and/or inequitable conduct were not timely raised during the preliminary motion period. Issues of fraud and/or inequitable conduct will not be considered in any interference in which the times for taking testimony or the times for filing briefs for final hearing have already been set, unless 'good cause' is shown under 37 CFR 1.655(b). An example of good cause would be where fraud or inequitable conduct is first discovered during taking of testimony. See notice published in the Official Gazette at 1133 O.G. 21 (December 10, 1991).
Questions of “fraud,” “inequitable conduct,” or violation of “duty of disclosure” or “candor and good faith” can arise in reissue applications.
Reissue is not available to rescue a patentee who had presented claims limited to avoid particular prior art and then had failed to disclose that prior art . . . after that failure to disclose has resulted in invalidating of the claims.
It is clear that “fraud” cannot be purged through the reissue process. See conclusions of Law 89 and 91 in Intermountain Research and Eng’g Co. v. Hercules Inc., 171 USPQ 577, 631-32 (C.D. Cal. 1971).
Clearly, if a reissue patent would not be enforceable after its issue because of “fraud,” “inequitable conduct” or “violation of the duty of disclosure” during the prosecution of the patent sought to be reissued, the reissue patent application should not issue. Where no investigation is needed to establish such circumstances, an appropriate remedy would be to reject the claims in the application in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 251. See MPEP § 1448.
The examiner is not to make any investigation as to the lack of deceptive intent requirement in reissue applications. Applicant's statement (in the oath or declaration) of lack of deceptive intent will be accepted as dispositive except in special circumstances such as an admission or judicial determination of fraud, inequitable conduct or violation of the duty of disclosure, where no investigation need be made and the fact of the admission or judicial determination exists per se. Also, any admission of fraud, inequitable conduct or violation of the duty of disclosure must be explicit, unequivocal, and not subject to other interpretation. Where a rejection is made based upon such an admission (see MPEP § 1448) and applicant responds with any reasonable interpretation of the facts that would not lead to a conclusion of fraud, inequitable conduct or violation of the duty of disclosure, the rejection should be withdrawn. Alternatively, if applicant shows that the admission noted by the examiner was not in fact an admission, the rejection should also be withdrawn.
Therefore, since the Kahn patent was held invalid, inter alia, for “failure to disclose material facts of which * * * [Kahn] was aware” this application may be stricken under 37 CFR 1.56 via the doctrine of collateral estoppel as set forth in Blonder-Tongue, supra.
The Patent and Trademark Office . . . has found no clear justification for not adhering to the doctrine of collateral estoppel under Blonder-Tongue in this case. Applicant has had his day in court. He appears to have had a full and fair chance to litigate the validity of his patent.
Submissions under 37 CFR 1.291 are not limited to prior art documents such as patents and publications, but are intended to include any information, which in the protestor’s opinion, would make or have made the grant of the patent improper (see MPEP § 1901.02). This includes, of course, information indicating the presence of “fraud” or “inequitable conduct” or “violation of the duty of disclosure,” which will be entered in the application file, generally without comment other than to state that such information will not be considered (see MPEP § 2010). See MPEP § 1901.06.
As provided in 37 CFR 1.555, the duty of disclosure in both ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings applies to the patent owner. That duty is a continuing obligation on the part of the patent owner throughout the proceedings. However, issues of “fraud,” “ inequitable conduct,” or “violation of duty of disclosure” are not considered in reexamination. See MPEP § 2280 for ex parte reexamination proceedings and MPEP § 2684 for inter partes reexamination proceedings. If questions of “fraud” or “inequitable conduct” or “violation of the duty of disclosure” are discovered during reexamination proceedings, the existence of such questions will be noted by the examiner in an Office action without further comment. See MPEP § 2258 for ex parte reexamination proceedings and MPEP § 2658 for inter partes reexamination proceedings.
For the patent owner’s duty to disclose prior or concurrent proceedings in which the patent is or was involved, see MPEP § 2282 (for ex parte reexamination), §2686 (for inter partes reexamination), and § 2001.06(c).
Once a court concludes that inequitable conduct occurred, all the claims __ not just the particular claims in which the inequitable conduct is directly connected __ are unenforceable. See generally, cases collected in 4 Chisum, PATENTS, paragraph 19.03 at 19-85 n. 10 (1984). Inequitable conduct “goes to the patent right as a whole, independently of particular claims.” In re Clark 522 F.2d 623, 626, 187 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA).
If the application is a reissue application, the action by the examiner may extend to a determination as to whether at least one “error” required by 35 U.S.C. 251has been alleged, i.e., identified. Further, the examiner should determine whether applicant has averred in the reissue oath or declaration, as required by 37 CFR 1.175(a)(2), (b)(1), and (b)(2), that all “errors” arose “without any deceptive intention.” However, the examiner should not normally comment or question as to whether the averred statement as to lack of deceptive intention appears correct or true. See MPEP § 1414.

References: § 2001
 v. 
 § 1901
 § 609
 § 2242
 § 2258
 § 2001
 v. 
 § 2001
 § 2001
 § 2001
 v. 
 § 609
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1442
 § 1442
 § 1442
 § 1441
 § 2202
 § 2208
 § 2209
 § 2220
 § 2609
 § 2620
 § 2165
 § 2165
 v. 
 v. 
 § 608
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2001
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 103
 v. 
 § 706
 § 706
 v. 
 § 704
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2022
 v. 
 § 1448
 § 1448
 § 1901
 § 2010
 § 1901
 § 2280
 § 2684
 § 2258
 § 2658
 § 2282
 §2686
 § 2001
 § 1414