Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/59/181/496071/
Timestamp: 2019-12-14 05:04:43
Document Index: 600062972

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 112', '§ 251', '§ 251', '§ 251', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 252']

In Re Robert M. Hunter, 59 F.3d 181 (Fed. Cir. 1995) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Federal Circuit › 1995 › In Re Robert M. Hunter
In Re Robert M. Hunter, 59 F.3d 181 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
Robert M. Hunter (Hunter) appeals from the 28 February 1994 decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (board), appeal no. 94-0576, affirming the examiner's final rejection of claims 33-40 of application Serial No. 07/828,528 ('528 application), which is for a broadening reissue of U.S. Patent No. 4,896,542 ('542 patent). The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,1 for lack of a written description that supports the rejected claims. We affirm.
App'n Filing Patent No. Issue Comments S/N Date Date 364,192 03/31/82 --- --- the original app'n, now abandoned 846,516 03/31/86 --- --- FWC4 of the '192 app'n, now abandoned 051,325 05/19/87 4,799,388 01/24/89 CIP5 of the '516 app'n 286,695 12/20/88 4,896,542 01/30/90 CIP of the '325 app'n 828,528 01/29/92 --- --- i) app'n for reissue of the '542 patent; ii) the litigated app'n
35 U.S.C. § 251. "In enacting the statute, Congress provided a statutory basis for correction of 'error [.'] The statute is remedial in nature, based on fundamental principles of equity and fairness, and should be construed liberally." In re Weiler, 790 F.2d 1576, 1579, 229 USPQ 673, 675 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Bennett, 766 F.2d 524, 528, 226 USPQ 413, 416 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1439 n.28, 221 USPQ 289, 296 n.28 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Hay, 534 F.2d 917, 919, 189 USPQ 790, 791 (CCPA 1976)). "Nonetheless, not every event or circumstance that might be labeled 'error' is correctable by reissue." Id. In particular, a reissue applicant may not claim inventions discovered after filing the original patent application. A reissue application is limited to "the invention disclosed in the original patent." 35 U.S.C. § 251.
A reissue application, like any other application, must meet the written description requirement of section 112. See 35 U.S.C. § 251 ("The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent ...." Id. p 3); see also In re Weiler, 790 F.2d at 1580, 229 USPQ at 675-76.
Although a specification that meets the written description requirement always satisfies the enablement requirement, the converse is not always true. The written description must "enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use" the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112; see Kennecott Corp. v. Kyocera Int'l, Inc., 835 F.2d 1419, 1421, 5 USPQ2d 1194, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (written description must enable), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1008 (1988). A patent specification, however, may fortuitously enable those of skill in the art to make and use an invention that an applicant did not make before filing the patent application. This latter application would satisfy the enablement requirement, but would not provide a section 112, first paragraph, "written description" adequate to support claims directed toward the later-made invention. See In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 591, 194 USPQ 470, 472 (CCPA 1977) (a specification may be sufficient to enable one skilled in the art to make and use the invention, but still fail to comply with the written description requirement), cert. denied, Barker v. Parker, 434 U.S. 1064 (1978); In re DiLeone, 436 F.2d 1404, 1405, 168 USPQ 592, 593 (CCPA 1971) (" [I]t is possible for a specification to enable the practice of an invention as broadly as it is claimed, and still not describe that invention.").
For the reasons discussed above, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the board committed a mistake in sustaining the rejection of claims 33-40 of the '528 application under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of a written description that supports the rejected claims. Finding no reversible error in the board's decision, we affirm.
See 37 C.F.R. Secs. 1.171, 1.178 ("The application for a reissue must be accompanied by an offer to surrender the original patent.... If a reissue be refused, the original patent will be returned to applicant upon his request." Id. Sec. 1.178); see also 35 U.S.C. § 252 ("The surrender of the original patent shall take effect upon the issue of the reissued patent ....")