Opinion ID: 470098
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Board's Opinion

Text: 23 In its opinion, the board said, as above indicated, that the subject matter of claims 13 and 19 was not claimed at all in the original application (emphasis added), and that nothing in the patent evidenced an intent to claim that subject matter, citing In re Rowand, 526 F.2d 558, 560, 187 USPQ 487, 489 (CCPA 1975), as controlling authority. 24 This court reviews decisions, not the mere language of an opinion. When that language indicates an erroneous basis for the decision, the decision will be reversed, but that is not the case here. The board's language, while infelicitous, simply meant that Weiler's failure to have ever claimed, broadly or narrowly or otherwise, the subject matter of claims 13 and 19, and his failure to show an intent to claim that subject matter, indicated absence of the statutorily required error. 25 The board's language reflected its well founded recognition that Weiler was seeking to claim subject matter entirely distinct from anything anywhere earlier claimed or attempted or intended to be claimed, and was not seeking to obtain a broadened or narrowed claim to subject matter claimed in the patent proffered for surrender. In dealing with that more common circumstance, one of our predecessor courts said the whole purpose of the [reissue] statute, so far as claims are concerned, is to permit limitations to be added to claims that are too broad or to be taken from claims that are too narrow. In re Handel, 312 F.2d 943, 948, 136 USPQ 460, 464 (CCPA 1963).