In re Richard N. BENNETT.
Appeal No. 84-778.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
June 28, 1985.
766 F.2d 524
Jack R. Miller, Senior Circuit Judge, filed dissenting opinion in which Skelton, Senior Circuit Judge, and Kashiwa, Circuit Judge, joined.
Paul M. Craig, Jr., Craig & Burns, Washington, D.C., argued for appellant. With him on brief was Frederick F. Calvetti.
Henry W. Tarring, III, Associate Sol., U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Arlington, Va., argued for appellee. With him on brief were Joseph F. Nakamura, Sol. and Jere W. Sears, Washington, D.C.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, FRIEDMAN, RICH, DAVIS, Circuit Judges, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, BALDWIN, KASHIWA, BENNETT, MILLER,* Senior Circuit Judge, SMITH, NIES, NEWMAN, and BISSELL, Circuit Judges.**
PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from the decisiоn of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (Board), rejecting claims 24-39 of reissue patent application Serial No. 036,745 of Richard N. Bennett under
Background
The application at bar was filed on May 7, 1979 for reissue of U.S. Patеnt No. 4,073,322 for a “High Speed Filling Machine” issued February 14, 1978 to National Instrument Company, Inc. as assignee of Richard N. Bennett. The invention is a machine for filling containers with fluid, which by its structure and operation is asserted to increase the filling rate substantially as compared with previously known machines. It is pertinent that the claims as issued describe a “continuously running conveyor means” and a “continuously running, in operation, conveyor belt“. The reissue application introduced new claims which usеd the unqualified words “conveyor means“. A purpose of the change to “conveyor means” was to cover intermittent as well as continuous running of the conveyor.
The application for reissue was filed fifteen months after the grant of the original patent, and was executed by Mr. Sidney Rosen as president of National Instrument Company, identifying Richard N. Bennett as the inventor. Fifteen months thereafter, hence thirty months after the original application was issued, the PTO‘s first Office Action informed appellant that since the reissue application sought to enlarge the scope of the claims it was required to be signed by the inventor in accordance with
The Board reversed the Examiner‘s rejections on prior art, but pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b) reversed the Examiner‘s acceptance of Bennett‘s substitute declaration, stating that the application as filed failed to comply with the requirements of
The pertinent paragraphs of
[¶ 3]: The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent.
[¶ 4]: No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
I.
Appellant first challenges the Board‘s conclusion that some of the proposed reissue claims seek to enlarge the scopе of the claims of the original patent. Appellant contends that the Board admitted that the difference in description of the conveyor is directed to a non-essential feature which adds no patentability to the claims, and points to the Examiner‘s statement that “[t]he claimed combination with an intermittent moving conveyor is not patentably distinct from the claimed combination with a continuously running conveyor“. Appellant argues further that other parts of the claims werе limited, so that overall the claims are not of enlarged scope.
The declaration of Mr. Rosen as president, accompanying the reissue application, stated that the original patent contained “limitations unduly restrictive” and that it “failed to cover the modified structure disclosed” in the specification. The subsequent declaration of Richard Bennett acknowledged that newly submitted claim 24 was “broader than claim 23“.
As stated in In re Rogoff, 261 F.2d 601, 603-04 (CCPA 1958), “a claim is broadened if it is broader in any respect than the original claim, even though it may be narrowed in other respects“. See also Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1438 (Fed.Cir.1984), and citations therein.
The Board correctly concluded that the reissue application contains broadened claims. “Conveyor means” is broader in scope than “a continuously running, in operation, conveyor belt“. It is immaterial whether the claimed invention with an intermittently moving conveyor is patentably distinct from one with a continuously running conveyor, for it is plain that “conveyor means” is broаder than both. We also agree with the Board that the execution of the broadening reissue application by the assignee‘s president instead of by the inventor did not comply with
The reissue application was filed within the two-year period set in
The declaration accompanying the application identified Richard N. Bennett as the inventor; its flaw is that the request for reissue was signed only by an officer of the patent owner, and not also by Mr. Bennett.
The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue....
Nevertheless Mr. Bennett, the inventor, could not have applied for the reissue on his own, whether or not the application sought broadened claims, as the signature of a representative of National Instrument Co. was a necessary part of any reissue application. 37 C.F.R. § 1.172(a).
The Board concluded that the substitute declaration by the inventor Bennett, which was filed more than two years after the grant of the original patent, could not cure the defеct in the reissue application, citing the absence of statutory authorization to the PTO to correct the defect. We hold that the patent statute and judicial precedent require a contrary result.
II.
Several provisions of the patent law enable correction of errors, to avoid jeopardizing a patent-seeker‘s rights and interest.
Any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be executed in a specified manner may be provisionally accepted by the Commissioner despite a defective execution, provided a properly executed document is submitted within such time as may be prescribed.
The legislative history of this section attests that Congress had in mind the dangers that overly-rigid bureaucratic practices could and did pose for patent applicants. The House Report states that before enactment of this provision, an irregularity in а patent application could bring the application process to a halt. This could “jeopardize the date of priority of ... invention” and result in “serious repercussions, including the loss of patent rights ....” H.R. Rep. No. 1181, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. 2, reprinted in 1964 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2122, 2123. Note also the amendment to allow late payment of issue fees, discussed in S.Rep. 1401, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 2, reprinted in 1974 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 7137, 7138, whereby
The principle behind such remedial provisions is to allow corrеction of those statutory rigors for which the penalty may be excessive under the circumstances. These relief provisions attempt to strike a balance between the need for consistency in administration of a complex statute, even if consistency occasionally results in forfeiture of substantive rights, and the need for fairness, which may place on the administering body the occasional burden of exercising discretion to avoid an unjust result. The balance chosеn requires continual evaluation in light of the purposes served by the statute.
It is not in the public interest to bar all possibility of legal or equitable relief, when such is sought to correct a harmless error. Thus we consider the reality of the practice at issue, guided by legislative and judicial precedent, and mindful of the interest of justice.
In Stoddard v. Dann, supra, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit applied these principles to enable correction of both an issued patent and а pending application that had mistakenly been executed by a representative of the assignee instead of by the inventor. To correct the patent, Stoddard had filed a reissue application accompanied by a declaration of the inventor to the effect that an innocent error had been made (an officer of the assignee instead of the inventor had signed the U.S. patent application); the inventor had also sought correction of the pending application. The PTO refused, stating that neither correction was authorized by statute.
The Court of Appeals reversed the PTO‘s decision. The court reviewed the foundations of the patent system, determined that the Constitution posed no obstacle to the corrections sought, and that “the constitutional objective of granting a patent (or a reissue patent) to the true inventor will be, and can only be, served by permitting the requested correction.” 564 F.2d at 562. The court observed that
There are striking parallels between Stoddard and the facts of the case at bar. Both cases involve error wherein the requirement that the application be executed by the inventor was not met, in that the applications were executed by a representative of the assignee. At issue in both cases was an invention for which a patent had already issued and the subject matter disclosed to the public, as the court in Stoddard said, “in accord with the constitutional objective ... even though the signature or signatures of the true inventive entity may be either incorrect or entirely absent.” 564 F.2d at 565.
Pertinent is the Stoddard court‘s conclusion that “[t]o permit the requested substitution of names would on this record harm no one“; and, “[t]o deny the requested correction ... would serve no useful purpose, would frustrate the constitutional objective, [and] would exalt form over substance ... all to the injury of the patent system and to him to whom it must appeal, i.e., the inventor.” 564 F.2d at 564.
In several ways Bennett‘s situation presents a more compelling case than that described in Stoddard. The Stoddard court allowed correction of a patent that named the assignee‘s representative as inventor. Bennett seeks to correct an application that named the correct inventor but was signed by the assignee‘s representative, for a patent which names the correct inventor. With the precedent that the former correction was permissible, surely so is the latter.
At the time Stoddard was decided,
Whenever a person is joined in an application for patent as joint inventor
through error, or a joint inventor is not included in an application through error, and such error arose without any deceptive intention on his part, the Commissioner mаy permit the application to be amended accordingly, under such terms as he prescribes.
The statute made no provision for the situation which Stoddard faced. The Stoddard court recognized that it was addressing a situation that had “escaped specific statutory treatment.” 564 F.2d at 565. The court‘s holding was embraced in the 1982 amendment of
Whenever through error a person is named in an application for patent as the inventor, or through error an inventor is not named in an application and such error arose without any deceptive intention on his part, the Commissioner may permit the appliсation to be amended accordingly, under such terms as he prescribes.
The legislative history of this provision makes clear its remedial intent. The House Report states that the amendment to
Recognizing that all of the provisions of a unified statute must be read in harmony, the portion of
IV.
Bennett complains that he had no opportunity to correct the error within the two-year period, citing M.P.E.P. § 1442.03 which states that “[a]ll reissue applications ... will be taken up for action ahead of other ‘special’ applications; this means that all issues not deferred will be treated and responded to immediately” (emphasis in original). It appears however that there was intervening activity, including two protests, that may have contributed to the delay. We do not address this issue, which is mooted by our decision.
V.
We conclude that the Board erred in refusing to allow appellant to correct the defective execution of the reissue application which was filed within the two year period of
REVERSED.
NIES, Circuit Judge, with whom BISSELL, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring.
I reach the same result as the majority but from a different reading of the statutе. While, under
Where the PTO determines that claims are being broadened, as here, the assignee is not entitled to the benefit of the third paragraph of
MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge, with whom SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and KASHIWA, Circuit Judge, join dissenting.
The third paragraph of
The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent.
It is clear that the board correctly ruled that the involved application was enlarged, contrary to the examiner‘s position that there was no patentable distinction between a “continuous” and an “intermittent” conveyor and that the language change was not the essence of the invention but merely set forth the best mode of carrying out the invention.1 In Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1438 (Fed.Cir.1984), this court recognized the principle (previously stated by the CCPA) that “a claim is broadenеd if it is broader in any respect than the original claim” even though it may be narrowed in other respects.
Appellant argues that
Appellant says that the filing of said application was an error without deceptive intent, but I agree with the Solicitor that for an аssignee to invoke the third paragraph of
Appellant argues further that the PTO should be estopped from pursuing rejection of the reissue claims because it accepted the original reissue application and gave it a filing date and serial number; also, because it violated section 1442 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure which directs that reissue applications be taken up “special” and issues be treated immediately.3 Assuming that these points establish an equitable argument, the short answer is that the PTO cannot deliberately or inadvertently waive the clear requirements of the statute. Appellant cites A.F. Stoddard & Co. v. Dann, 564 F.2d 556 (D.C.Cir.1977), as precedent for “interstitial legislation” (the involved statute,
Appellant contends that reissue statutes, being remedial, “should be construed liberally,” and (in effect) that a declaration filed by the inventor on January 26, 1981, more than two years after issuance of the original patent on February 14, 1978, should nunc pro tunc cure its reissue application. However, no amount of “liberalism” can justify disregard of the plain meaning of the statute. I do nоt regard In re Doll, 419 F.2d 925 (CCPA 1970), as precedent to the contrary
The decision of the PTO should be affirmed.
Notes
See In re Ruth, 278 F.2d 729 (CCPA 1960).[O]riginal patent claim 23 had been changed by Examiner‘s Amendment to “a continuously running, in operation, conveyor belt” which language is believed awkward and which has been changed ... that the aforementioned limitation added to claim 23 in the Examiner‘s Amendment dated October 20, 1977 is unduly restrictive ...; that claims 24-34 were added to correct the aforementioned deficiencies, claim 24 being broader than claim 23.