Opinion ID: 548309
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Patentability of Wells' claims 11-36

Text: 2 The Board determined that claims 11-36 were unpatentable to Wells because the reissue application included broadening claim language more than two years after the date of the grant of the original patent in contravention of section 251 and Wells has not appealed that determination. Verbruggen seeks to have this court find these claims unpatentable for other reasons as well, namely that they are inadequately supported in the original application under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112 (1988) and that they were not omitted from the original application through error. Verbruggen suggests that if we fail to rule on these additionally asserted grounds, what will happen is that when the Wells' application returns to ex parte prosecution, Wells will simply amend the claims to narrow the current overbroad language and the narrowed claims will be allowed, without anyone being able to contest the improper allowance. We do not share Verbruggen's clear view of future events. Nothing would prevent the examiner, if Wells amends, from considering the patentability issues raised by Verbruggen and rejecting the claims on these or even alternative grounds. Moreover, nothing in the Board's decision or the decision of this court precludes anyone who is accused of infringing the amended claims from raising these arguments as to the claims' invalidity. To decide whether invalid claims 11-36, if amended, would be invalid on other grounds amounts to issuing an advisory opinion which would contravene our judicial power as an Article III court. See, e.g., Stearns v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 770 F.2d 599, 601 (6th Cir.1985); Hamman v. Southwestern Gas Pipeline, Inc., 721 F.2d 140, 143-44 (5th Cir.1983); Environmental Defense Fund v. Alexander, 614 F.2d 474, 480 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 919 (1980). 3