35 U.S.C. § 251 Construction

13 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Application of Leland C. Clark, Jr.
  522 F.2d 623· C.C.P.A.· 1975-09-25 ·cited 34×
  The court affirmed the board's rejection of the reissue application, finding that the changes made were insufficient to avoid the issue of unpatentability previously decided by the Fifth Circuit.
• Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.
  882 F.2d 1556· Fed. Cir.· 1989-08-09 ·cited 19×
  The court held that inequitable conduct during reissue proceedings requires a finding of intent to mislead, not just gross negligence, and that such conduct renders all claims of the patent unenforceable. The court affirmed the invalidity of reissue claims 10-12 due to a defectiv
• Application of William O. Wesseler
  367 F.2d 838· C.C.P.A.· 1966-10-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the patentee demonstrated 'error without any deceptive intention' under 35 U.S.C. § 251, entitling him to seek broader claims in a reissue patent. The Board of Appeals' reasoning based on abandonment and deliberate claim narrowing was unwarranted.
• In re Elmar W. Weiler and Richard L. Mansell
  790 F.2d 1576· Fed. Cir.· 1986-05-08 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Board of Appeals did not err in sustaining the rejection of reissue claims 13 and 19 because the appellant failed to establish that the failure to claim this subject matter in the original application was due to the "error" required by 35 U.S.C. § 251.
• Application of Ryohei ODA
  443 F.2d 1200· C.C.P.A.· 1971-07-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that correcting a clear translation error in a patent specification, where the correction does not change the claimed invention and is made without deceptive intent, does not constitute prohibited 'new matter' under 35 U.S.C. § 251.
• In re Godfrey Newbold Hounsfield
  699 F.2d 1320· Fed. Cir.· 1983-02-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals erred in rejecting reissue patent claims based solely on a lack of 'intent to claim' as an independent requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 251.
• In re Bennett
  766 F.2d 524· Fed. Cir.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an assignee cannot invoke the exception for filing a reissue application if the application seeks to enlarge the scope of the original patent's claims, and equitable arguments cannot override clear statutory requirements.
• A. F. Stoddard & Co., Ltd. v. Dann
  564 F.2d 556· D.C. Cir.· 1977-08-26 ·cited 6×
  An innocent error in naming the sole inventor in a patent application can be corrected by diligent action upon discovery, even if it requires substituting a new sole inventor.
• M. O. S. Corp. v. John I. Haas Co., Inc.
  332 F.2d 910· 9th Cir.· 1964-05-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the proceedings surrounding the application for reissue, its rejection, and the abandonment of the appeal did not give rise to file wrapper estoppel, collateral estoppel, or res judicata, thus allowing the plaintiff to assert that the patent claims cover singl
• Application of Leo Price
  302 F.2d 741· C.C.P.A.· 1962-05-18 ·cited 2×
  A reissue patent claim is broader if it is broader in any respect, even if narrower in another, and cannot enlarge the scope of the original patent if applied for more than two years after the original patent's grant.
• In re Burton D. Morgan
  990 F.2d 1230· Fed. Cir.· 1992-10-29
  The court held that the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks lacks authority to reissue a patent once its term has expired, rendering the appeal moot.
• In re Amos
  953 F.2d 613· Fed. Cir.· 1991-12-31
  The court held that the objective intent to claim, standing alone, is not a sufficient basis for denying a patent reissue application under 35 U.S.C. § 251.
• Hickory Springs Mfg. Co. v. Fredman Bros. Furniture Co., Inc.
  509 F.2d 55· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-14
  The dissenting judge would reverse the jury's finding of patent infringement, believing the accused device does not infringe the Fredman patent.