Court Opinion

ID: 9473684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:36:53.207198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:41.072332
License: Public Domain

NIES, Circuit Judge, with whom BIS-SELL, Circuit Judge,
joins, concurring.
I reach the same result as the majority but from a different reading of the statute. While, under § 251, a reissue application must be filed within two years and must be supported by an inventor’s oath to obtain broadened claims, I read these as separable *529provisions. In my view, the third paragraph of § 251 is a dispensation, not a requirement tied to the two year deadline. Further, nothing in §§ 111 or 115 requires participation in the filing of a reissue application by the inventor.
Where the PTO determines that claims are being broadened, as here, the assignee is not entitled to the benefit of the third paragraph of § 251. The oath required of the inventor in such cases is comparable, in my mind, to a supplemental oath by an inventor during original prosecution in instances where claims are broadened. Such oath, presumably for the purpose of assuring that the inventor does believe he invented what is claimed, does not change a filing date. On the other hand, the two year deadline for broadened reissue serves a different purpose — namely, to fix a specific time limit for filing a reissue application seeking broader claims, replacing the imprecise application of “laches.” That purpose was fully satisfied by National’s filing in this case. National’s reissue application secured a filing date within the prescribed two year period, clearly negating laches. I see nothing in the requirement for an inventor’s oath that expressly, or by necessary implication, takes that filing date away with respect to claims in a reissue application which are broader than issued claims, whether the broader claims are added during prosecution of the reissue application, as were the claims in issue in In re Doll, 419 F.2d 925, 164 USPQ 218 (CCPA 1970), or submitted in the reissue application as filed. In other words, I see no partial defective “execution” of a reissue application. National’s reissue application was validly executed for the broader, as well as the narrower, claims presented therein. With respect to the broader claims, a supplemental inventor’s oath was required which does not change the filing date.