Featured Posts
- Facebook Loses Reexaminations of Pragmatus’ Patents
- How is Reexamination Treating Round Rock Research?
- Reexamination has not Saved Apple against MobileMedia Patents, So Far
- What is an “Involved Application” in IPR Practice?
- Apple Victorious over Affinity Labs of Texas’ Portable Audio Player Patent
- Think IP Strategy Offers 2011 News Almanac
- An Update on Oracle’s Infringement Case against Google
- PTO Requests Public Comment on Proposed Rules for AIA Post-Issuance Proceedings
- Microsoft-i4i, Oracle-Google & VirnetX-Apple-Cisco Updates
- Oracle Patent to Emerge from Reexamination
- VirnetX again Sues for Infringement, and again Faces Reexaminations
- How Strong are Google’s Requests for Reexamination of the Lodsys Patents?
- PTO Board Sides with NVIDIA on Two Rambus “Barth I” Patents
- Oracle ‘520 Moves toward Confirmation in Reexamination
- Google Gets Mixed Result against Oracle’s Seventh Patent
- Did Google Request Reexamination of Lodsys Patents?
- Two Updates
- Oracle v. Google Android® Update
- Rambus Wins Limited Exclusion Order at ITC against NVIDIA, despite Pending Reexaminations
- 最初が肝心：不備のない再審査請求書を作成するために
- That’s My Patent You’re Reexamining…
- “Why Wait for Oppositions?” by Scott Daniels, 47 IDEA 343 (Law Review of Franklin Pierce Law School)
- The Basics
Noteworthy Links
- "The Interplay between Reexaminations, Preliminary Injunctions and Stays of Litigation" - by Dennis Crouch at PATENTLYO.COM
Favorite Patent Blogs
- All Things Pros
- CAFC Alert
- FDA Law Blog
- IPWatchdog
- Patent Docs
- Patently-O
- PLI Patent Law Practice Center
- Think IP Strategy
- US Patent Post-Grant Opposition
Recent Requests
PTO Statistics
Claims Lack Written Description Support
| July 27, 2009
The CAFC has affirmed a Patent Office ruling that the patent specification in the reexamination application, In re Reiffin Family Trust, failed to provide written description support for certain claims sought to add to U.S. Patent No. 5,694,604, rendering those claims unpatentable.
The patent claimed a computer system for efficient operation of computer compilation and human editing of source code. The claims included the limitation that the computer compiler performs lexical, syntactical and semantic analyses of the source code, and then emits an error message visible to the human when an error in the code is detected. The patentee included this disclosure in its original 1982 application and its later 1985 and 1990 applications, but omitted it from its 1994 application, and the disclosure does not appear in the ‘604 patent.
The patentee argued before the Patent Office that it should be allowed to amend its reexamination application to include the needed disclosure from the 1982, 1985 and 1990 applications, under the Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp. The Patent Office rejected the patentee’s argument, stating that the patentee had indicated that the disclosure was not part of its invention by omitting it from the ‘604 patent application.
On appeal, the patentee asserted that Litton applied because 37 C.F.R. – 1.550 states that ex parte reexaminations should be conducted in the same manner as ordinary applications under 35 U.S.C. 1.104-1.116, and because 35 U.S.C. 305 states that reexamination “will be conducted according to the procedures established for initial examination.”
On an issue of first impression, the CAFC disagreed and affirmed the Patent Office’s written description rejection. The CAFC explained that once a patent issues, the patentee’s right to amend the specification and claims is limited – more specifically, the patentee is not permitted to add new matter. 35 U.S.C. 251. The CAFC added that when the 1994 application issued as the ‘604 patent, the patentee’s failure to maintain continuity of disclosure became uncorrectable.
Litton allows an applicant to amend its continuation-in-part application to include subject matter from an earlier application and obtain priority benefit of the filing date of the earlier application. 728 F.2d 1423, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
