Watkinson, In re, 89-1537
| Decision Date | 30 March 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1537,89-1537 |
| Citation | 900 F.2d 230,14 USPQ2d 1407 |
| Parties | , 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1407 In re Sarah C. WATKINSON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Steven B. Kelber, Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C., Arlington, Va., argued for appellant.
John W. Dewhirst, Associate Sol., Office of Sol., Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Fred E. McKelvey, Sol.
Before ARCHER and MICHEL, Circuit Judges, and BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Sarah C. Watkinson (Watkinson) appeals the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (board), of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), Appeal No. 88-3520, affirming the decision of the examiner rejecting all the claims in reissue application serial no. 06/817,286 for U.S. Patent No. 4,481,219 ('219), under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 251 (1982), as lacking a statutory basis for reissue. We affirm.
I.
Watkinson's original application, serial no. 06/395,928, filed July 7, 1982, was directed to compositions for and methods of inhibiting the growth of timber fungus. During prosecution, the examiner subjected the application to a restriction requirement, designating the following groups:
Group I, encompassing claims 24, 26-31, 33, 35-37, 43-44, 46, 48-49 and 51, drawn to a composition and method of use thereof, having at least two components; and
Group II, encompassing claim 38, drawn to a method of using a composition having only one component.
In response to the restriction requirement, Watkinson elected the claims within Group I for further prosecution and reserved the right to file a divisional application containing claims to the non-elected invention. Watkinson then cancelled non-elected claim 38 and the patent issued on November 6, 1984, without a divisional application having been filed.
A reissue application, serial no. 06/817,286, was filed on January 9, 1986, with claims 1-35 corresponding to those in the '219 patent and claims 36-38 corresponding to claim 38 which had been cancelled from the original application. The examiner rejected all of the claims in the reissue application under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 251 (1982) 1 for lack of a statutory error.
Watkinson then appealed to the board arguing that her acquiescence in the restriction requirement in the original application was an error correctable by reissue because the restriction requirement had, in fact, been improper. She explained that her failure to traverse the restriction requirement was due to her agent's mistaken belief that the invention of claim 38 was unpatentable.
The board found that the case before it fell squarely within the holding of In re Orita, 550 F.2d 1277, 1281, 193 USPQ 145, 149 (CCPA 1977), and that the record simply did not support Watkinson's excuse for not traversing the restriction requirement. It concluded that Watkinson's errors involved nothing more than a deliberate choice to file a divisional application rather than traverse the restriction requirement, and a subsequent failure to file such a divisional. Therefore, it sustained the examiner's section 251 rejection.
The issue in this case is whether the board erred in affirming the examiner's rejection of all the claims in a reissue application under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 251 (1982) when the alleged error was the acquiescence in a restriction requirement in the original application.
OPINIONWe find no error in the board's analysis and conclusion in this case.
In In re Orita, the issue was whether the failure to file a divisional application was an error causing the original patent to be partially inoperative and thus correctable by reissue under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 251. 550 F.2d at 1280, 193 USPQ at 148. This court's predecessor court found that the failure to file a divisional simply cannot be related back as an error in the issued patent. Id. It further stated that "granting by reissue claims substantially identical to those non-elected in application I would be ignoring the proper restriction requirement set forth in that application in which appellants acquiesced." 550 F.2d at 1280, 193 USPQ at 149 (emphasis added). By focusing on the single word "proper" in the above quotation, Watkinson argues that the propriety of the restriction requirement was central to the Orita decision, and should be central to our analysis here. Hence, Watkinson dedicates much of her brief to a discussion of the merits of the restriction requirement in the original application and concedes that if the restriction requirement were proper, the '219 patent issued error free.
In light of the record and relevant case law, however, we reject Watkinson's argument and hold that the failure to file a divisional application, regardless of the propriety of the underlying restriction requirement, is not an error correctable by reissue under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 251.
Contrary to Watkinson's assertion, the propriety of the restriction requirement was simply not an issue in Orita. In fact, the opinion is totally devoid of any analysis of the merits of the restriction requirement and it is unnecessary to pursue such an analysis here. Orita must be read for adhering to the previously established principle that applicants are "estopped from obtaining by reissue claims which, because of a requirement for restriction in which they had acquiesced, they could not claim in their patent." 550 F.2d at 1280, 193 USPQ at 148 (). See also In re Weiler, 790 F.2d 1576, 1582, 229 USPQ 673, 677 (Fed.Cir.1986) ( ); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed.Cir.1984) () (emphasis in original); Haliczer v. United States, 356 F.2d 541, 545, 174 Ct.Cl. 507, 148 USPQ 565, 569 (1966). ("[T]he deliberate cancellation of claims in order to obtain a patent constitutes a bar to obtaining these same claims by inclusion in a reissue patent.").
Ex parte Holt and Randell, 214 USPQ 381 (Bd.Pat.App. & Inter.), vacated, majority opinion adopted on reh'g, 218 USPQ 747 (Bd.Pat.App. & Inter.1982) cited by Watkinson is neither binding on this court, nor does it support Watkinson's position. The central issue in Holt was whether acquiescence in an improper rejection of a Markush claim under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 121 (1982) 2 was an error correctable by reissue. Id. at 383. The board found that the error in not recognizing the impropriety of the rejection was an error sufficient under section 251 and that the appellants' failure to file a timely divisional application should not foreclose them from pursuing section 251 relief. Id. at 384. Although Watkinson argues that the board's logic in Holt promotes a similar holding in the present case, Holt is, in fact, inapplicable. Contrary to Watkinson's assertion, there is a legally significant difference between the rejection in Holt and the restriction requirement in the present case. Under In re Weber, 580 F.2d 455, 458, 198 USPQ 328, 332 (CCPA 1978) and In re Haas, 580 F.2d 461, 464, 198 USPQ 334, 336 (CCPA 1978), it is never proper for an examiner to reject a Markush claim under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 121. Section 121 simply does not authorize such a rejection. Id. The board's decision in Holt not only recognizes this legal principle but explicitly notes that with regard to section 121, the rejection of a Markush claim is different from a restriction requirement between different claims. Holt, 214 USPQ at 384 (discussing In re Orita, 550 F.2d 1277, 193 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1977)). That is, a restriction requirement is "proper" under section 121, whereas the rejection of a Markush claim is not.
Thus, although the impropriety of the rejection of a Markush claim was central to the Holt decision, nowhere in Holt did the board engage in the kind of analysis Watkinson demands of this court here. Indeed, neither this court nor the board has jurisdiction in this proceeding to review the merits of a requirement for restriction under section 121, as a restriction requirement is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Biogen Ma, Inc. v. Japanese Found. for Cancer Research
...convenience”); Transco Prods. Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 558–59 (Fed.Cir.1994) (same); In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 233 (Fed.Cir.1990) (restriction is “a matter within the discretion of the examiner and not tantamount to a rejection of claims”); In re Hengehold, 5......
-
Conmed Corp. v. Ludlow Corp.
...1340 (Fed.Cir.1999) ("[T]he controlling fact is that [the patentee] no longer sought to claim [the broader claims]."); In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 232 (Fed.Cir.1990) ("[A]fter acquiescing in the restriction requirement, canceling the nonelected claim and allowing the .. patent to issue, ......
-
Snow Economics, Inc. v. Topgun Snow Making Systems, Inc.
... ... not within the purview of the Board, but instead, should be ... petitioned to the Director. In re Watkinson, 900 ... F.2d 230, 232-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The Board has no ... jurisdiction for matters within the discretion of the ... ...
-
Google Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.
...such a matter is petitionable-not appealable-and, therefore, not before us. See Tr. 42:1–8; 45:10–20; see also In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230, 232-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (noting that the Board has no jurisdiction for matters the Examiner's discretion and not tantamount to a rejection of claims)......
-
Patent Federal Circuit Update
...was invalid under the Orita doctrine. The Federal Circuit held that the estoppel rationale underlying Orita and In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the only Federal Circuit case to apply Orita, did not apply to Doyle's reissue declaration. The Court explained that because Doyle'......
-
Use of Reissue Proceedings in Hatch-Waxman Litigation
...bans on double patenting. Pfizer, 731 F. Supp. 2d at 752–54. 14. 35 U.S.C. § 251(a); see also MPEP § 1455. 15. In re Watkinson, 900 F.2d 230 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Orita, 550 F.2d 1277 (C.C.P.A. 1977). 16. Haliczer v. United States, 174 Ct. Cl. 507, 356 F.2d 541, 545, 148 U.S.P.Q. 565, 569......