1412 Content of Claims
|
1412.01 Reissue Claims Must Be for Same General Invention
|
Section Frequency Chart
| Key |
|
|||||
| 1412.01 |
The original patent specification discloses that composition X is not suitable (or not satisfactory) for molding an item because composition X fails to provide quick drying. The patent issues with claims directed only to composition Y. After the patent issues, it is found that composition X would be desirable for the molding in spite of the failure to provide quick drying, because of some other newly recognized benefit from composition X. The addition of a claim to composition X or a method of use thereof would not be permitted in a reissue application, because the original patent specification contained an explicit statement of intent not to claim composition X or a method of use thereof. One should understand, however, that the mere failure to claim a disclosed embodiment in the original patent (absent an explicit statement in the original patent specification of unsuitability of the embodiment) would not be grounds for prohibiting a claim to that embodiment in the reissue.
1412.02 Recapture of Canceled Subject Matter
|
Section Frequency Chart
| Key |
|
|||||
| 1412.02 |
I. THREE STEP TEST FOR RECAPTURE:
We apply the recapture rule as a three-step process:
- (1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
- (2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
- (3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
A. The First Step - Was There Broadening?
In every reissue application, the examiner must first review each claim for the presence of broadening, as compared with the scope of the claims of the patent to be reissued. A reissue claim is broadened where some limitation of the patent claims is no longer required in the reissue claim. If the reissue claim is not broadened in any respect as compared to the patent claims, the analysis ends; there is no recapture.
B. The Second Step - Does Any Broadening Aspect of the Reissued Claim Relate to Surrendered Subject Matter?
Where a claim in a reissue application is broadened in some respect as compared to the patent claims, the examiner must next determine whether the broadening aspect(s) of that reissue claim relate(s) to subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the original application (which became the patent to be reissued).
1. The Two Sub-Steps:
- (A) One must first determine whether applicant surrendered any subject matter in the prosecution of the original application that became the patent to be reissued.
- (B) If applicant did surrender subject matter in the original application prosecution, the examiner must then determine whether any of the broadening of the reissue claims is in the area of the surrendered subject matter. The examiner must analyze all of the broadening aspects of the reissue claims to determine if any of the omitted/broadened limitation(s) are directed to limitations relied upon by applicant in the original application to make the claims allowable over the art.
With respect to the “second step” in the recapture analysis, it is to be noted that if the reissue claim(s), are broadened with respect to the previously surrendered subject matter, then recapture will be present regardless of other unrelated narrowing limitations
Note the following examples illustrating the above:
Assume that, in the original prosecution of the patent, applicant claimed a method of making a glass lens, where the ion implantation step used a molten bath to diffuse ions into the lens, and that step was amended to recite a pressure of 50-60 PSI and temperature between 150-200 degrees C - to define over the art. That pressure and temperature range-set is “frozen” in place for any molten bath ion implantation claim, and it cannot be deleted or broadened by reissue. However, if in the original application, applicant had failed to claim a disclosed embodiment to plasma ion implantation (i.e., using a plasma stream rather than a molten bath to provide the ions), that is a proper 35 U.S.C. 251 error, which can be corrected by reissue. Applicant can, in a reissue application, add a set of claims to plasma ion implantation, without including the “50-60 PSI and temperature between 150-200 degrees C” limitation. The “50-60 PSI - 150-200 degrees C limitation” is totally irrelevant to plasma implantation. Also, if in the original application, applicant failed to claim the method of placing two lenses made by the invention in a specified series to modulate a laser for cutting chocolate, that too is a proper 35 U.S.C. 251 error, which can be corrected by reissue. In this lens placement method, it does not matter how the specific lens having the implanted ion gradient was made, and the “50-60 PSI and temperature between 150-200 degrees C” limitation is again not relevant.
2. Examples of the Second Step Analysis:
An example of a general "boiler plate" sentence of argument is:
In closing, it is argued that the limitations of claims 1-7 distinguish the claims from the teachings of the prior art, and claims 1-7 are thus patentable.
An argument that merely states that all the limitations of the claims define over the prior art will also not, by itself, be sufficient to establish surrender and recapture.
An example is:
Claims 1-5 set forth a power-train apparatus which comprises the combination of A+B+C+D+E. The prior art of record does not disclose or otherwise teach, providing a material-transfer apparatus as defined by the limitations of claim 1, including an A member and a B member, both connected to a C member, with all three being aligned with the D and E members.
This statement is simply a restatement of the entirety of claim 1 as allowed. No measure of surrender could be gleaned from such a statement of reasons for allowance.
The limitation omitted in the reissue claim(s) was added in the original application claims for the purpose of making the application claims allowable over a rejection or objection made in the application. Even though applicant made no argument on the record that the limitation was added to obviate the rejection, the nature of the addition to the claim can show that the limitation was added in direct reply to the rejection.
To illustrate this, note the following example:
The original application claims recite limitations A+B+C, and the Office action rejection combines two references to show A+B+C. In the amendment replying to the Office action, applicant adds limitation D to A+B+C in the claims, but makes no argument as to that addition. The examiner then allows the claims. Even though there is no argument as to the addition of limitation D, it must be presumed that the D limitation was added to obviate the rejection. The subsequent deletion of (omission of) limitation D in the reissue claims would be presumed to be a broadening in an aspect of the reissue claims related to surrendered subject matter. Accordingly, the reissued claims would be barred by the recapture doctrine. The above result would be the same whether the addition of limitation D in the original application was by way of applicant’s amendment or by way of an examiner’s amendment with authorization by applicant.
Assume that the limitation A omitted in the reissue claims was present in the claims of the original application. The examiner’s reasons for allowance in the original application stated that it was that limitation A which distinguished over a potential combination of references X and Y. Applicant did not present on the record a counter statement or comment as to the examiner’s reasons for allowance, and permitted the claims to issue.
It is only in the situation where applicant does file comments on the statement of reasons for allowance, that surrender may have occurred.
Note the following two scenarios in which an applicant files comments:
The examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance in the original application stated that it was limitation C (of the combination of ABC) which distinguished over a potential combining of references X and Y, in that limitation C provided increased speed to the process. Applicant filed comments on the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance essentially supporting the examiner’ s reasons. The limitation C is thus established as relating to subject matter previously surrendered.
On the other hand, if applicant’s comments on the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance contain a counter statement that it is limitation B (of the combination of ABC), rather than C, which distinguishes the claims over the art, then limitation B would constitute surrendered subject matter, and limitation C has not been surrendered.
C. The Third Step - Were the reissued claims materially narrowed in other respects, and hence avoid the recapture rule?
As pointed out above, the third prong of the recapture determination set forth in North American Container considers the significance of the claim limitations that were added and deleted, during prosecution of the patent (to be reissued) to determine whether the reissue claims should be barred as recapture.
The following discussion addresses analyzing the reissue claims, and which claims are to be compared to the reissue claims in determining the issue of surrender (for reissue recapture).
When analyzing a reissue claim for the possibility of impermissible recapture, there are two different types of analysis that must be performed. If the reissue claim "fails" either analysis, recapture exists.
First, the reissue claim must be compared to any claims canceled or amended during prosecution of the original application. Claim scope that was canceled or amended is deemed surrendered and therefore barred from reissue.
Second, it must be determined whether the reissue claim omits or broadens any limitation that was added or argued during the original prosecution to overcome an art rejection. Such an omission in a reissue claim, even if it is accompanied by other limitations making the reissue claim narrower than the patent claim in other aspects, is impermissible recapture.
A) If surrendered subject matter has been entirely eliminated from a claim present in the reissue application, then a recapture rejection is proper and must be made for that claim. Stated another way, if a claim limitation present in the original patent that was added to overcome a rejection or that was argued by applicant to distinguish over the prior art is entirely eliminated from a claim in the reissue application, then a recapture rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251 is proper and must be made for that claim.
B) If the surrendered subject matter has not been entirely eliminated from a claim in the reissue application (i.e., the amendment narrowing the claim or the argued limitation has not been entirely eliminated from the claim in the reissue application), but rather it has been made less restrictive in the reissue application claim (such that the claim is broadened), the analysis is as follows:
It must be determined what portion of the amendment or argued limitation has been retained, and whether the retained portion materially narrows the original claims to avoid recapture.
The following discussion is provided for analyzing the reissue claims.
1. Comparing Reissue Claims Narrowed/Broadened Vis-à-vis the Canceled Claims
DEFINITIONS:
"Canceled claims," in the context of recapture case law, are claims canceled from the original application to obtain the patent for which reissue is now being sought. The claims:
- can simply be canceled and not replaced by others, or
- can be canceled and replaced by other claims which are more specific than the canceled claims in at least one aspect (to thereby define over the art of record).
- The "replacement claims" can be new claims which are narrower than the canceled claims, or can be the same claims amended to be narrower than the canceled version of the claims.
“Surrender-generating limitation” – The “limitation” presented, argued, or stated to make the claims patentable over the art (in the application) “generates” the surrender of claimed subject matter. For the sake of simplification, this limitation will be referred to throughout this section as the surrender-generating limitation.
(a) Reissue Claims Are Same or Broader in Scope Than Canceled Claims in All Aspects:
The recapture rule bars the patentee from acquiring, through reissue, claims that are in all aspects (A) of the same scope as, or (B) broader in scope than, those claims canceled from the original application to obtain a patent.
(b) Reissue Claims are Narrower in Scope Than Canceled Claims in at Least One Aspect:
If the reissue claims are equal in scope to, or narrower than, the claims of the original patent (as opposed to the claims "canceled from the application" ) in all aspects, then there can never be recapture. The discussion that follows is not directed to that situation. It is rather directed to the situation where the reissue claims are narrower than the claims 'canceled' from the application in some aspect, but are broader than the claims of the original patent in some other aspect.
If the reissue claims are narrower in scope than the claims canceled from the original application by inclusion of the entirety of the limitation added to define the original application claims over the art, there will be no recapture, even if the reissue claims are broader than the canceled claims in some other aspect (i.e., an aspect not related to the surrender made in the original application).
Assume combination AB was originally presented in the application, and was amended in response to an art rejection to add element C and thus provide ABC (after which the patent issued). The reissue claims are then directed to combination ABbroadenedC. The ABbroadenedC claims are narrower in scope when compared with the canceled claim subject matter AB with respect to the addition of C (which was added in the application to overcome the art), and they retain surrender-generating limitation C; thus, there is no recapture.
As another example, assume combination ABZ was originally presented in the application, and was amended in response to an art rejection to add element C and thus provide ABZC (after which the patent issued). The reissue claims are then directed to combination ABC (i.e., element Z is deleted from the canceled claims, while element C remains present). The ABC claims of the reissue are narrower in scope as compared to the canceled-from-the-original-application claim subject matter ABZ with respect to the addition of C (which was added in the application to overcome the art), and they retain surrender-generating limitation C; thus, there is no recapture.
2. Comparing Reissue Claims Narrowed/Broadened Vis-à-vis the Patent Claims
The "patent claims," in the context of recapture case law, are claims that issued in the original patent for which reissue is now being sought. As pointed out above, where the reissue claims are narrower than the claims of the original patent in all aspects, then there can never be recapture. If reissue claims are equal in scope to the patent claims, there is no recapture as to those reissue claims. Where, however, reissue claims are both broadened and narrowed as compared with the original patent claims, the nature of the broadening and narrowing must be examined to determine whether the reissue claims are barred as being recapture of surrendered subject matter. If the claims are "broader than they are narrower in a manner directly pertinent to the subject matter... surrendered during prosecution, then recapture will bar the claims. This narrowing/broadening vis-à-vis the patent is broken down into four possibilities that will now be addressed.
If a claim is presented in a reissue application that omits, in its entirety, the surrender-generating limitation, that claim impermissibly recaptures what was previously surrendered, and that claim is barred under 35 U.S.C. 251.
(a) Reissue Claims are Narrower in Scope Than Patent Claims, in Area Not Directed to Amendment/Argument Made to Overcome Art Rejection in Original Prosecution; are Broader in Scope by Omitting Limitation(s) Added/Argued To Overcome Art Rejection in Original Prosecution:
In this case, there is recapture.
This situation is where the patent claims are directed to combination ABC and the reissue claims are directed to ABD. Element C was either a limitation added to AB to obtain allowance of the original patent, or was argued by applicant to define over the art (or both). Thus, addition of C (and/or argument as to C) has resulted in the surrender of any combination of A & B that does not include C; this is the surrendered subject matter. Element D, on the other hand, is not related to the surrendered subject matter. Thus, the reissue claim, which no longer contains C, is broadened in an area related to the surrender, and the narrowing by the addition of D does not save the claim from recapture because D is not related to the surrendered subject matter.
Reissue claims that are broader than the original patent claims by not including the surrender-generating limitation (element C, in the example given) will be barred by the recapture rule even though there is narrowing of the claims not related to the surrender-generating limitation. If the reissue claim is broader in an aspect germane to a prior art rejection, but narrower in another aspect completely unrelated to the rejection, the recapture rule bars the claim.
(b) Reissue Claims are Narrower or Equal in Scope, in Area Directed to Amendment/Argument Made to Overcome Art Rejection in Original Prosecution; are Broader in Scope in Area Not Directed to Amendment/Argument:
In this case, there is no recapture.
This situation is where the patent claims are directed to combination ABCDE and the reissue claims are directed to ABDE (element C is omitted). Assume that the combination of ABCD was present in the original application as it was filed, and element E was later added to define over that art. No argument was ever presented as to elements A-C defining over the art.
In this situation, the ABCDE combination of the patent can be broadened (in the reissue application) to omit element C, and thereby claim the combination of ABDE, where element E (the surrender generating limitation) is not omitted. There would be no recapture in this instance. (If an argument had been presented as to element C defining over the art, in addition to the addition of element E, then the ABCDE combination could not be broadened to omit element C and thereby claim combination of ABDE. This would be recapture; see the above discussion as to surrender and recapture based upon argument.)
Additionally, the reissue claims are certainly permitted to recite combination ABDEspecific (where surrender-generating element E is narrowed). The patent claims have been broadened in an area not directed to the surrender (by omitting element C) and narrowed in the area of surrender (by narrowing element E to Especific). This is clearly permitted.
As another example, assume limitation C was added to application claims AB to obtain the patent to ABC, and now the reissue application presents claims to AC or ABbroadC. Such reissue claims avoid the effect of the recapture rule because they are broader in a way that does not attempt to reclaim what was surrendered earlier. Such claims are considered to be broader in an aspect not "germane to a prior art rejection," and thus are not barred by recapture.
Reissue claims that are broader than the original patent claims by deletion of a limitation or claim requirement other than the "surrender-generating limitation" will avoid the effect of the recapture rule, regardless of the nature of the narrowing in the claims, and even if the claims are not narrowed at all from the scope of the patent claims.
(c) Reissue Claims are Narrower in Scope in Area Not Directed to Amendment/Argument Made to Overcome Art Rejection in Original Prosecution; are Broader in Scope in Area Not Directed to the Amendment/Argument:
In this instance, there is clearly no recapture. In the reissue application, there has been no change in the claims related to the matter surrendered in the original application for the patent.
In this instance, element C was added to the AB combination to provide ABC and define over the art, and the patent was issued. The reissue omits element B and adds element Z, to thus claim ACZ. There is no recapture because the surrender generating element C has not been modified in any way. (Note, however, that if, when element C was added to AB, applicant argued that the association of newly added C with B provides a synergistic (unexpected) result to thus define over the art, then neither element B nor element C could be omitted in the reissue application.)
(d) Reissue Claims Broader in Scope in Area Directed to Amendment/Argument Made to Overcome Art Rejection in Original Prosecution; but Reissue Claims Retain, in Broadened Form, the Limitation(s) Argued/Added to Overcome Art Rejection in Original Prosecution:
In this case, there may be recapture.
Assume the combination AB was originally claimed in the application, and was amended in reply to an art rejection to add element C and thus provide the combination ABC (after which the patent issued). A reissue application is then filed, and the reissue application claims are directed to the combination ABCbroadened. The ABCbroadened claims are narrowed in scope when compared with the canceled claim subject matter AB, because of the addition of Cbroadened. Thus, the claims retain, in broadened form, the limitation argued/added to overcome art rejection in original prosecution. In this instance, a recapture rejection can be made even though ABCbroadened is narrower than canceled claim subject matter AB , but only if Cbroadened was “well known in the prior art”. On the other hand, “if the patentee modifies the added limitation such that it is broader than the patented claim yet still materially narrows relative to the original claim, the recapture rule does not bar reissue.” Any recapture of surrendered subject matter that was in prior art of the original prosecution forms the ceiling for determining whether the modified limitation is materially narrowing.
II. REISSUE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b):
For patents issued on an application subject to the pre-AIA prior art regime (pre-AIA patents), a patentee may file a reissue application to permit consideration of process claims which qualify for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) treatment if a patent is granted on an application entitled to the benefit of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b), without an election having been made as a result of error without deceptive intent.
This is not to be considered a recapture. The addition of process claims, however, will generally be considered to be a broadening of the invention, and such addition must be applied for within two years of the grant of the original patent, or in an appropriate continuing broadening reissue application claiming the benefit of a prior filed broadening reissue application filed within two years of the grant of the original patent.
III. REISSUE FOR ARTICLE CLAIMS WHICH ARE FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL STORED ON A COMPUTER-READABLE MEDIUM:
A patentee may file a reissue application to permit consideration of article of manufacture claims (not presented in the patent to be reissued) which are functional descriptive material stored on a computer-readable medium, where these article claims correspond to the process or machine claims which have been patented. The addition of these “article” claims will generally be considered to be a broadening of the invention, and such addition must be applied for within two years of the grant of the original patent.
V. REBUTTAL BY THE REISSUE APPLICANT
The reissue applicant may rebut a recapture rejection by demonstrating that a claim rejected for recapture includes one or more claim limitations that “materially narrow” the reissue claims in a way that relates to the subject matter surrendered during original prosecution.
Examples of reissue application claims that are to be rejected for recapture under 35 U.S.C. 251 include:
Assume that the original application claim ABCD was amended during prosecution and results in a patent claim ABCDE.
1. ABCD → Eliminates E, the surrender generating limitation (SGL).
2. ABCDF → Eliminates E, the SGL; adds narrowing limitation F.
3. ABCDEBROADER → Broadens E, the SGL; EBROADER is well known in the art.
4. ABCDEBROADERF → Broadens E; EBROADER is well known in the art; adds narrowing limitation F.
In these four examples, a recapture rejection would be made. For examples 2 and 4, applicant may try to rebut the recapture rejections by showing that limitation F “materially narrows” the reissue claims in a way that relates to the subject matter surrendered during original prosecution. If such is the case, the reissue applicant should point out explicitly what limitation has been added to the claims (in this case, limitation F) and how it materially narrows the claims.
VI. FLOWCHART
See the recapture-analysis flow chart which follows for assistance in determining whether recapture is present, consistent with the case law discussed above.
