Case Name: HAYNES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JESSOP STEEL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1994-02-08
Citations: 15 F.3d 1076
Docket Number: No. 91-1410
Parties: HAYNES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JESSOP STEEL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before RICH, NEWMAN, and PLAGER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 15
Pages: 1076–1077

Head Matter:
HAYNES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JESSOP STEEL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 91-1410.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Feb. 8, 1994.
Victor M. Wigman, Wigman, Cohen, Leit-ner and Myers, P.C., of Arlington, Virginia and Lynn J. Alstadt, Buchanan Ingersoll, P.C., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were on the Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc.
William H. Webb and Kent E. Baldauf, Webb, Burden, Ziesenheim & Webb, P.C., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were on the brief for Appellee on Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc.
Before RICH, NEWMAN, and PLAGER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PLAGER, Circuit Judge.
Prior Report: 8 F.3d 1573.
ORDER
This case is now before us on appellant's petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc, filed Nov. 15, 1993 and appellee's brief in response thereto, filed Dec. 2, 1993, which have now been considered.
In order to clarify that the estoppel in this case arose from pre-issuance activities, and to emphasize the unique circumstances present in this case, we grant the petition for rehearing for the limited purpose of making the following language changes:
Page 1577, col. 2 line 33, delete "or reissue".
Page 1578, col. 1 line 19, delete "or reissue".
Page 1578, col. 2 line 8, delete "or reissue";
line 26, change "It is only" to — However, — ;
line 29, change "them can it" to — them, it can — ; and
line 30, after "established." insert
—A different case would be presented had the cancellation of original claims 1 and 4 occurred while prosecution was on-going, i.e., while Cabot had the opportunity in this pro ceeding to continue the prosecution of those claims. Had that been the case, Cabot's purpose in cancelling the claims could be divined from that act alone, and there would be no need to consider Cabot's activities or the lack thereof regarding future prosecution of the rejected claims. But see Square Liner 360°, Inc. v. Chisum, 691 F.2d 362, 371-72, 216 USPQ 666, 672-73 (8th Cir.1982) (Miller, J., sitting by designation) (holding that, even in this instance, the applicant's filing of a continuation-in-part application containing claims directed to the cancelled subject matter precluded the finding of an estoppel). — .
In all other respects, the petition is denied.