Reissue Applications Are Bound by the Scope of the Claims as Written, Not as Intended
Contributed by Knobbe Martens. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.
Written by:Nathan D. Reeves and Michael E. Salamy
Before Stoll, Clevenger, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: When considering whether a reissue claim broadens the scope of the original patent, the PTAB determines the actual scope of the original claim, not the scope the inventors intended.
Kostic filed a reissue application for their patent directed to a method of selling online advertising, which had issued more than two years before. Independent claim 1 of the patent recited a step of conducting a trial process, and dependent claim 3 recited the method of claim 1 “without a trial process.” The reissue application attempted to rewrite dependent claim 3 in independent form, making the trial process optional. The examiner rejected the reissue for impermissibly broadening the claims beyond the two-year limit. The PTAB affirmed the examiner’s rejection, and Kostic appealed.
On appeal, Kostic argued that the proper inquiry was not whether the scope of the reissue claim was broader than the actual scope of the original claim, but whether the scope of the reissue claim was broader than the intended scope of the original claim. The Federal Circuit disagreed, holding that the claims are to be construed as written, not as the patentee intended. Because reissue claim 3, which recited a trial process as optional, would be broader than the original claims, which required a trial process, the reissue application was barred.
Editor: Sean Murray
More insights
The Prosecution Data Most IP Attorneys Never Look At
Most prosecution strategy is set before anyone looks at who is actually examining the application. What is sitting there unused Every examiner has a history: allowance rate, average number of office actions, how often an interview changes the outcome. None…
Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Patent for Lack of Enablement of Claims Directed to a Method of Treating a Patient with a Unit Dosage in Wyeth Llc v Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals Lp
Written by : Eric Furman, Ph.D. and Ashley C. Morales Key Takeaway: Federal Circuit invalidates patent claims directed to a method for treating non-small cell lung cancer through administration of “a unit dosage” of an irreversible epidermal…
When About Becomes Indefinite Federal Circuit Provides Guidance for Life Science Patent Applications Regarding Limits of Approximation in Enviro Tech v Safe Foods
Written by : Jason J. Jardine and Kenneth O. Aruda, Ph.D. Key Takeaway: The term “about” remains useful in biotech and pharmaceutical claims, but only if the patent provides objective guidance about what the term means. Absent that guidance,…