Smith cell phone without antenna
From Patentbarquestions
Q) Smartner’s Cell Phone (4.02.22p)
22. Patentee, Iam Smarter, filed and prosecuted his own nonprovisional patent application on November 29, 1999, and received a patent for his novel cellular phone on June 5, 2001. He was very eager to market his invention and spent the summer meeting with potential licensees of his cellular phone patent. Throughout the summer of 2001, all of the potential licensees expressed concern that the claim coverage that Smarter obtained in his cellular phone patent was not broad enough to corner the market on this technology, and therefore indicated to him that they feel it was not lucrative enough to meet their financial aspirations. By the end of the summer, Smarter is discouraged. On September 5, 2001, Smarter consults with you to find out if there is anything he can do at this point to improve his ability to market his invention. At your consultation with Smarter, you learn the foregoing, and that in his original patent application, Smarter had a number of claims that were subjected to a restriction requirement, but were nonelected and withdrawn from further consideration. You also learn that Smarter has no currently pending application, that the specification discloses Smart’s invention more broadly than he ever claimed, and that the claims, in fact, are narrower than the supporting disclosure in the specification. Which of the following will be the best recommendation in accordance with proper USTPO practice and procedure?
(A) Smarter should immediately file a divisional application under 37 CFR
1.53(b) including the nonelected claims that were subjected to a restriction
requirement in the nonprovisional application that issued as the patent.
(B) Smarter should file a reissue application under 35 U.S.C. § 251, including the nonelected claims that were subjected to the restriction requirement in the nonprovisional application that issued as the patent.
(C) Smarter should file a reissue application under 35 U.S.C. § 251, broadening the scope of the claims of the issued patent, and then file a divisional reissue application presenting only the nonelected claims that were subjected to a restriction requirement in the nonprovisional application which issued as the patent.
(D) Smarter should simultaneously file two separate reissue applications under 35 U.S.C. § 251, one including broadening amendments of the claims in the original patent, and one including the nonelected claims that were subjected to a restriction requirement in the nonprovisional application which issued as the patent.
(E) Smarter should file a reissue application under 35 U.S.C. § 251 on or before June 5, 2003, broadening the scope of the claims of the issued patent.
ANSWER The forgotten divisional problem. Iam Smarter is outa luck here.
E is all he’s got left. No recapturing what he failed to file a divisional
for even under the new more flexible reissue approach.
22. ANSWER: (E) is the correct answer. 35 U.S.C. §251. The reissue permits Smarter to
broaden the claimed subject (A) is incorrect. There must be copendency between the divisional
application and the original application. 35 U.S.C. § 120. (B) This is incorrect, as an
applicant’s failure to timely file a divisional application while the original application is still
pending is not considered to be an error correctable via reissue, In re Orita, 550 F.2d 1277, 1280,
193 USPQ 145, 148 (CCPA 1977). (C) This is incorrect, as an applicant’s failure to timely file a
divisional application while the original application is still pending is not considered to be an
error correctable via reissue, Id., including a divisional reissue application. MPEP § 1402. (D)
This is incorrect, as an applicant’s failure to timely file a divisional application while the original
application is still pending is not considered to be an error correctable via reissue, Id.
