37 C.F.R. § 1.176
Examination of reissue
(a) A reissue application will be examined in the same manner as a non-reissue, non-provisional application, and will be subject to all the requirements of the rules related to non-reissue applications. Applications for reissue will be acted on by the examiner in advance of other applications.
(b) Restriction between subject matter of the original patent claims and previously unclaimed subject matter may be required (restriction involving only subject matter of the original patent claims will not be required). If restriction is required, the subject matter of the original patent claims will be held to be constructively elected unless a disclaimer of all the patent claims is filed in the reissue application, which disclaimer cannot be withdrawn by applicant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases, 1976–2014 · leading case: In Re Suong-Hyu Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
In Re Suong-Hyu Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “See 37 C.F.R. § 1.176 (a) ("A reissue application will be examined in the same manner as a non-reissue, non-provisional application, and will be subject to all the requirements of the rules related to non-reissue applications.”
Digit. Equip. Corp. v. Sidney A. Diamond, Etc., 653 F.2d 701 (1st Cir. 1981). “See 37 C.F.R. § 1.176 : “An original claim, if re-presented in the reissue application, is subject to reexamination, and the entire application will be examined in the same manner as original applications.”
Hewlett-Packard Co., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 882 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “§ 251 (“[t]he provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent”); 37 C.F.R. § 1.176 (1988) (reissue application “examined in the same manner as original applications”); In re Doyle, 482 F.”
In Re Berwyn E. Etter, 756 F.2d 852 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “Reexamination, as interpreted by the PTO, is a two step process involving: (1) the determination that there is “a substantial new question of patentability”, and (2) reexamination itself.”
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 46 F. Supp. 3d 523 (D.N.J. 2014). “11/653,830 (“the reissue application”) to rectify the error identified by the Federal Circuit in claim 6 of the '995 patent. (Am. Compl. ¶ 100.) In theory, this placed the entire '995 patent in jeopardy, because “a reissue application, including all the claims therein, is…”
Nupla Corp. v. Ixl Mfg. Co., Inc., 114 F.3d 191 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “” 37 C.F.R. § 1.176 . Pertinent prior art is citable, even if it was not cited in the original examination.”
Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. v. Doll, 620 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.D.C. 2009). “See 37 C.F.R. § 1.176 (a). After reviewing Hitachi’s reissue application, the PTO Examiner (“Examiner”) denied Claim 1, among others, as obvious under 35 U.”
Fisher Controls Co., Inc. v. Control Components, Inc., 443 F. Supp. 581 (S.D. Iowa 1977). “37 C.F.R. § 1.176 . Possible Benefits of Reissue Examination to Ongoing Litigation The benefits of the new rules must, of necessity, be found in informed prediction.”
Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 530 F. Supp. 303 (N.D. Tex. 1981). “176, 37 C.F.R. § 1.176 , the reissue application is to be examined “in the same manner as original applications, subject to the rules relating thereto.”
George M. Mooney v. Brunswick Corp., 663 F.2d 724 (7th Cir. 1981). “37 C.F.R. § 1.176 (1980). In addition, patent examiners are not permitted to discuss questions of patentability involving the patent at issue with applicants until after the first official action of the Office.”
In Re Paul Graff, 111 F.3d 874 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “See 37 C.F.R. § 1.176 (“An original claim, if re-presented in the reissue application, is subject to reexamination, and the entire application will be examined in the same manner as original applica-tions____”) The examiner, by action dated September 2, 1987, rejected all of the…”
Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. v. Dudas, 556 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2008). “See 37 C.F.R. § 1.176 (a). After reviewing Hitachi’s reissue application, the examiner denied Claims 1-3, 26, 27, 37, 48-56, and 58-62 as unpatentable under 35 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.