米国 TIPS Reissue

(271) (PatentlyO) (BPAI)
私はまだReissue使ったことありませんが、この事例を教訓に
気をつけようと思います。
しかし、この案件の担当者はこのケースがこうも話題になっていると
気がついているのでしょうかね？

MPEP § 1402
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 251, the error upon which a reissue is based must be one which causes the patent to be "deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent."

上記のようにReissueを請求するには特許に欠陥がなければなりません。

September 24, 2007　づけデクラレーションには以下の記載
The inventor asserted that he believed that “the original patent is at least partially inoperative by reason of claiming more or less than [he] had a right to claim in the original patent.”
The inventor further asserted:
That while I recognize the importance of the aspects of the invention disclosed in the original patent, I did not fully understand the scope of the claims under U.S. law, and thus, when the original application was prepared, I failed to recognize that the disclosed invention was not fully covered by the original claims.

ところがReissue明細のクレームにはオリジナルのクレームがすべて残され、
変更点は従属クレームが1個追加されたのみ。発明者としてはオリジナルクレーム
は潜在的にinvalidかもしれないがvalidの可能性もあるとしてオリジナルクレームを
すべて残したものの、審査官はthe reissue declaration cannot satisfy the error required under 35 U.S.C. § 251 because it cannot properly allege that the patent is wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent.
として拒絶。BPAIも審査官の判断を追認しました。

どういう対応策をとるべきかということについてはこの文献が役立つかもしれません。