| Patents > Search Colections > MPEP > 1412.01 Reissue Claims Must Be for Same General Invention [R-2] - 1400 Correction of Patents |
|
|
|
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
1412.01 Reissue Claims Must Be for Same General Invention [R-2] - 1400 Correction of Patents
1412.01 Reissue Claims Must Be for Same General Invention [R-2]
The reissue claims must be for the same invention as that *>disclosed< as being the invention in the original patent, as required by 35 U.S.C. 251. This does not mean that the invention claimed in the reissue must have been claimed in the original patent, although this is evidence that applicants considered it their invention. The entire disclosure, not just the claim(s), is considered in determining what the patentee objectively intended as his or her invention. The proper test as to whether reissue claims are for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention in the original patent is "an essentially factual inquiry confined to the objective intent manifested by the original patent." In re Amos, 953 F.2d 613, 618, 21 USPQ2d 1271, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (quoting In re Rowand, 526 F.2d 558, 560, 187 USPQ 487, 489 (CCPA 1975)) (emphasis added). See also In re Mead, 581 F.2d 257, 198 USPQ 412 (CCPA 1978). The "original patent" requirement of 35 U.S.C. 251 must be understood in light of In re Amos, supra, where the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated:
We conclude that, under both Mead and Rowand, a claim submitted in reissue may be rejected under the "original patent" clause if the original specification demonstrates, to one skilled in the art, an absence of disclosure sufficient to indicate that a patentee could have claimed the subject matter. Merely finding that the subject matter was "not originally claimed, not an object of the original patent, and not depicted in the drawing," does not answer the essential inquiry under the "original patent" clause of § 251, which 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 short, the absence of an "intent," even if objectively evident from the earlier claims, the drawings, or the original objects of the invention is simply not enough to establish that the new claims are not drawn to the invention disclosed in the original patent.
953 F.2d at 618-19, 21 USPQ2d at 1275. Claims presented in a reissue application are considered to satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 251 that the claims be "for the invention disclosed in the original patent" where:
(A) the claims presented in the reissue application are described in the original patent specification and enabled by the original patent specification such that 35 U.S.C. 112 first paragraph is satisfied; and
(B) nothing in the original patent specification indicates an intent not to claim the subject matter of the claims presented in the reissue application.
>The presence of< some disclosure (description and enablement) in the original patent should evidence that applicant intended to claim or that applicant considered the material now claimed to be his or her invention.
The original patent specification would indicate an intent not to claim the subject matter of the claims presented in the reissue application in a situation analogous to the following:
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. 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. 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.
In most instances, however, 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.
>FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A DIVISIONAL APPLICATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ORIGINAL PATENT
Where a restriction requirement was made in an application and applicant permitted the elected invention to issue as a patent without the filing of a divisional application on the non-elected invention(s), the non-elected invention(s) cannot be recovered by filing a reissue application. A reissue applicant' s failure to timely file a divisional application covering the non-elected invention(s) in response to a restriction requirement is not considered to be error causing a patent granted on the elected claims to be partially inoperative by reason of claiming less than the applicant had a right to claim. Accordingly, such error is not correctable by reissue of the original patent under 35 U.S.C. 251. In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 14 USPQ2d 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Orita, 550 F.2d 1277, 1280, 193 USPQ 145, 148 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Mead, 581 F.2d 251, 198 USPQ 412 (CCPA 1978). In this situation, the reissue claims should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for lack of defect in the original patent and lack of error in obtaining the original patent. Compare with In re Doyle, 293 F.3d 1355, 63 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2002) where the court permitted the patentee to file a reissue application to present a so-called linking claim, a claim broad enough to read on or link the invention elected (and patented) together with the invention not elected. The non-elected invention(s) were inadvertently not filed as a divisional application.<
The Inventors Assistance Center is available to help you on patent matters.Send questions about USPTO programs and services to the USPTO Contact Center (UCC). You can suggest USPTO webpages or material you would like featured on this section by E-mail to the webmaster@uspto.gov. While we cannot promise to accommodate all requests, your suggestions will be considered and may lead to other improvements on the website. |
|
|
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
=online
business system 
=fees 
=forms
=help 
=laws/regulations 
=definition
(glossary)