Court Opinion

ID: 9475690
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:35:56.211117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:52.851317
License: Public Domain

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151, 214 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1982), which held a reissue application under the Dann Amendments, 37 C.F.R. § 1.175(a)(4),** repealed effective July 1, 1982, is merely a request for an advisory opinion because it does not contemplate a change in either the patent specification or claims.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.