Case Name: In re Joseph W. KEIL
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1987-01-08
Citations: 808 F.2d 830
Docket Number: Appeal No. 86-616
Parties: In re Joseph W. KEIL.
Judges: Before BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judge, NEWMAN and ARCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 808
Pages: 830–833

Head Matter:
In re Joseph W. KEIL.
Appeal No. 86-616.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Jan. 8, 1987.
Richard A. Killworth, Killworth, Gottman, Hagan & Schaeff, Dayton, Ohio, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Timothy W. Hagan. Also on the brief was Robert L. McKellar, Dow Corning Corp., Midland, Mich., of counsel.
Fred E. McKelvey, Deputy Sol., Office of the Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and John C. Martin, Associate Sol.
Before BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judge, NEWMAN and ARCHER, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Phillip B. Baldwin assumed Senior Circuit Judge status effective November 25, 1986.

Opinion:
BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judge.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision affirming an examiner's rejection of a reissue application under 35 U.S.C. § 251 is dismissed.
The patentee has sought reissue of a patent without change to its text. This case is governed by In re Dien, 680 F.2d 151, 214 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1982), which held a reissue application under the Dann Amendments, 37 C.F.R. § 1.175(a)(4), repealed effective July 1, 1982, is merely a request for an advisory opinion because it does not contemplate a change in either the patent specification or claims. As we are bound by that precedent, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
Section 1.175(a)(4) reads as follows:
§ 1.175 Reissue oath or declaration. [Rule 175.]
(a) Applicants for reissue, in addition to complying with the requirements of the first sentence of § 1.65, must also file with their applications a statement under oath or declaration as follows:
*
(4) When the applicant is aware of prior art or other information relevant to patentability, not previously considered by the Office, which might cause the examiner to deem the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, particularly specifying such prior art or other information and requesting that if the examiner so deems, the applicant be permitted to amend the patent and be granted a reissue patent.