Opinion ID: 208849
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claiming the same invention

Text: Revolution also argues that claim 22 is invalid for violating 35 U.S.C. § 251 because it does not claim the same invention as disclosed in the original '207 patent. According to § 251, a reissue patent shall be reissued for the invention disclosed in the original patent. The essential inquiry for the original patent requirement is whether one skilled in the art, reading the specification, would identify the subject matter of the new claims as invented and disclosed by the patentees. In re Amos, 953 F.2d 613, 618 (Fed.Cir. 1991). This inquiry is analogous to the written description requirement under § 112, ¶ 1. Id. at 617. Because we have held that the written description requirement is satisfied, we similarly hold that claim 22 complies with § 251.