Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.)
IN RE ERIC J. ARNOTT
Reissue Patent No. 33,039
May 22, 1991
*1 Granted: August 29, 1989
For: Lens Implant for Insertion in the Human
Eye
Harry F. Manbeck, Jr.
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
DECISION ON PETITION
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Eric J. Arnott
(petitioner) seeks review by petition (Paper No. 32) of several decisions denying requests for
certificates of correction. More specifically, the petition concerns denial of
two requests for Certificates of Correction, filed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 255, seeking to correct Reissue Patent No.
33,039 (reissue patent), a reissue of United States Patent No. 4,476,591
(original patent). Petitioner is the sole inventor named in both the original
patent and the reissue patent.
Background
The original patent
included only claims 1-6. Original claim 1 is an independent claim. Original
claims 2-6 all depend either directly or indirectly from original claim 1. The
reissue application proposed to modify original claim 1, and to add new claims
7 and 8, each depending from claim 1. The reissue patent issued on August 29,
1989, with reissue claims 1-8. Reissue claim 1 is different from, and broader
than, original claim 1; reissue claims 2-6 read the same as original claims
2-6; new reissue claims 7 and 8 depend from reissue claim 1 and do not
correspond to any original claim.
In his reissue
declaration, petitioner stated:
5. That he verily
believes Letters Patent No. 4,476,591 to be wholly or partially inoperative by
reason of claiming less than he had a right to claim in said Letters Patent.
6. That furthermore, he
verily believes that claim 1 of said Letters Patent and the claims dependent
thereon respectively are of insufficient breadth for the reason that each is
limited by the recitation of a specific lens and loop material, i.e.,
polymethyl methacrylate; by the recitation of the loop structure, i.e., that
the fourth portion of each loop lies radially outwards of the said second
portion of the other loop; likewise by the recitation that the fourth portion
of each loop can be pressed inwards into contact with the second portion of the
other loop; and by the recitation that, after insertion in the posterior chamber
of the human eye the loops spring open, again. As such, each of said claims is
unduly limited and hence, inoperative to afford patent coverage commensurate
with the true scope of his improvement as disclosed in the specification, to
wit a lens implant having a pair of integrally formed diametrically opposed
loops, the configuration of which loops is designed to completely surround the
circular lens element. As originally claimed, the invention of claim 1 fails to
precisely cover what is critical to the invention, namely the completely
encircling nature of the lens loops as opposed to the extent of the lens loop
overlap. [Emphasis in original.]
During examination of the
reissue application, an examiner objected to the reissue declaration on the
basis that it did not specify when and how the alleged error occurred.
Petitioner, through a first supplemental reissue declaration, overcame the examiner's
objection. The examiner then further objected to the reissue declaration on the
basis that it was not clear whether petitioner had reviewed and understood the
contents of the reissue application. Petitioner, through a second supplemental
reissue declaration, overcame the examiner's further objection. The first and
second supplemental reissue declarations did not allege an error different from
that alleged in the original reissue declaration, i.e., that petitioner claimed
less than he had a right to claim, and that claim 1 and claims dependent
thereon were of insufficient breadth.
*2 The reissue
patent contains reissue claims 1-8. Figure 1 of the reissue patent (which is
the same as Fig. 1 of the original patent) is reproduced below.
TABULAR OR GRAPHIC MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE
Reissue claim 1 reads as
follows (numerals from Figure 1 added; language deleted from original claim 1
in brackets and crossed out; and language added to original claim 1
underlined):
1. A lens implant for
insertion in the posterior chamber of a human eye after an extra-capsular
extraction, said implant comprising a lens 1 and first and second similar
holding loops 2 formed integrally with and projecting
from the periphery of said lens 1, each of said loops 2 lying substantially in
the plane of said lens 1 and being open-ended with one end of said loop integral
with said lens 1 and the other end of said loop free, said ends of said loops
which are integral with said lens 1 being substantially diametrically opposite
each other around the periphery of said lens 1, and each of said loops 2,
starting from said end which is integral with said lens 1, including a first
portion 3 extending substantially radially outwards from said lens 1, a sharp
bend 4 extending from said first portion 3, a second portion 5 extending from
said bend 4, said second portion 5 being of a curvature such that it follows,
but is spaced radially outwards from, said periphery of said lens 1, a third
portion 6 which extends from, and is of less curvature than, said second
portion 5, and a fourth portion 7 which extends from said third portion 6 and
is of a curvature substantially similar to that of said second portion 5, the
end of said fourth portion remote from said third portion 6 being free and
lying radially outwards of the other of said loops 2, whereby said two loops 2
together surround said lens 1, and said first portion 3 of each said loops 2
being relatively stiff and the other portions 5, 6, 7 of said loops 2 being
more flexible and resilient so that, in use, when said implant is to be
inserted through an incision into a human eye, said fourth portion 7 of each of
said loops 2 can be pressed inwards into contact with the other of said loops
2, and both said loops 2 bend in such a way
that together they form a substantially circular ring surrounding said lens 1,
and, after insertion, said loops 2 spring open and the configuration of an
encircling ring is maintained and said ring tends to adhere to the underlying
posterior lens capsule of said eye eye.
Reissue claims 7 and 8
did not appear in the original patent. They read as follows, with reference
numerals from Figure 1 added:
7. A lens implant as
claimed in claim 1, wherein the implant is made of polymethyl methacrylate.
8. A lens implant as
claimed in claim 1, wherein the fourth portion 7 of each loop 2 lies radially
outward from the second portion 5 of the other loop 2 such that, in use, when
the implant is to be inserted through an incision into a human eye, said fourth
portion 7 of each loop 2 can be pressed inward into contact with the second
portion 5 of the other loop 2.
*3 As shown above,
reissue claim 1 deletes from original claim 1 limitations concerning (1) the
material from which the lens implant is made, and (2) the second portion of the
other loop. Reissue claim 7 adds back the limitation that the lens implant is
made of polymethyl methacrylate, but does not contain any limitation concerning
the second portion of the other loop. Reissue claim 8 adds back certain
limitations about the second portion of the other loop, but does not contain
any limitation concerning the material with which the implant is made.
Consequently, reissue claims 1, 7, and 8 are each broader in scope than original claim 1, the
only independent claim in the original patent. Reissue claims 2-6 are also each
broader than respectively corresponding dependent claims 2-6 of the original
patent, because reissue claims 2-6 depend from broadened reissue claim 1. The
broader scope of reissue claims 1-8 is fully consistent with the statements
made in petitioner's reissue declaration.
On May 18, 1990,
petitioner filed a first request for Certificate of Correction (Paper No. 24).
The mistake alleged was that reissue claim 8 erroneously had been made to
depend from reissue claim 1 when it should have been made to depend from
reissue claim 7 (id. at page 2). Petitioner further stated that if made to
depend from reissue claim 7, reissue claim 8 would have (1) a form
corresponding exactly to the limitations of original claim 1, and (2) a scope
that is coextensive with original claim 1 (id. at page 3).
The first request for
Certificate of Correction was denied on May 24, 1990 (Paper No. 27); reconsideration was denied on July 11, 1990
(Paper No. 28).
On August 14, 1990,
petitioner filed a second request for Certificate of Correction (Paper No. 30).
Rather than seeking to change the dependency of reissue claim 8 from reissue
claim 1 to reissue claim 7, petitioner sought to add a proposed reissue claim
9. Proposed claim 9 is said to be of the same scope as original claim 1, except
for one apparently mis-typed word. Petitioner stated that the error which he
now seeks to correct is the same as that sought to be corrected by the first request for
Certificate of Correction. The second request describes the mistake as:
"[T]he potential absence of a claim in the reissue that is identical to a
claim in the original patent" (Paper No. 30, page 1).
The second request for
Certificate of Correction was denied on November 8, 1990.
Petitioner now requests
(1) further reconsiderationof the denial of the first request for Certificate
of Correction, and (2) reconsideration of the denial of the second request for
Certificate of Correction.
Opinion
1. The petition is not timely insofar as it seeks further
reconsideration of the denial of the first request
The current petition
(filed on January, 7, 1991) was not filed within two months of the action
complained of, viz., the decision of May 24, 1990 (Paper No. 27), adhered to on
reconsideration on July 11, 1990 (Paper No. 28), denying the first request for
Certificate of Correction. No excuse has been presented as to why the current
petition was not filed within the two-month period specified in 37 CFR § 1.181(g). Hence, insofar as the current
petition seeks further reconsideration of
the denial of July 11, 1990, the petition is denied as being untimely. Another
independent ground for denying the first request, as well as the second
request, follows.
2. Petitioner is not entitled to relief on the merits of either
request
*4 Independent
from being untimely, the petition fails to state a claim for relief on the
merits with respect to the first request for Certificate of Correction. It also
fails to state a claim with respect to the second request for Certificate of
Correction on the merits.
A. The choice of who decides and the expertise of the deciding
official
As a preliminary matter,
petitioner charges that there was an inconsistency between the handling of the
first and second requests (Paper No. 32, pages 2- 3). Evidently, the petitioner
is of the view that it is the examining art unit which should decide whether a
proposed correction requires reexamination. On that basis, petitioner requests
that the denials of May 24 and July 11, 1990, be vacated. Petitioner demands
that the first request be forwarded to the Group Director of Group 330 for
consideration.
Petitioner's argument
lacks merit. The Commissioner has discretion to delegate authority to decide requests under
35 U.S.C. § 255 to appropriate
employees of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Petitioner is not entitled
to a decision by any particular PTO employee, or unit, or to have any
particular PTO employee, or unit, participate in the decision on any request
for Certificate of Correction.
Moreover, petitioner is
not necessarily entitled to know whether the examining art unit participated in
the denial of the first request for Certificate of Correction. To permit
petitioner to inquire into who a deciding official consults, and the extent of
any consultation, would constitute an unwarranted invasion into the deciding
official's mental process or manner of deliberation in arriving at the ultimate
decision; as such, it is privileged information protected from discovery. See
United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 422 (1941); Western Electric Co., Inc.,
v. Piezo Technology, Inc. v. Quigg, 860 F.2d 428, 432, 8 U.S.P.Q.2d 1853, 1856
(Fed. Cir. 1988). In addition, within the executive branch, confidential
exchanges of opinions and rendering of advice are protected as privileged
information. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. v. United States, 157 F. Supp.
939, 944-47 (Ct. Cl. 1958). See also Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 764
F.2d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Petitioner asserts that
"it is the art unit which possesses the ready expertise to assess whether
or not reexamination would really be required" (Paper No. 32, page 3). Insofar as the
petitioner is challenging the expertise of any individual who rendered any
decision on either request for Certificate of Correction, it suffices to simply
note that the expertise of a deciding official is not legally relevant to the
merits of any decision and is not subject to challenge. See In re Nilssen, 851
F.2d 1401, 1402-03, 7 U.S.P.Q.2d 1500, 1501 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
*5 In any event,
inasmuch as the merits of both requests for Certificates of Correction are
being reviewed by the Commissioner in person, petitioner's expertise and/or
authority challenge is moot. There can be no challenge to the authority of the
Commissioner to decide the petition in person. Kingsland v. Carter Carburetor
Corp., 168 F.2d 565, 77 USPQ 499 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 335 U.S. 819
(1948), reh'g denied, 335 U.S. 864 (1948).
B. Two separate requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 255
Section 255 of Title 35,
United States Code reads:
§ 255 Certificate of
correction on applicant's mistake
Whenever a mistake of a
clerical or typographical nature, or of minor character, which was not the
fault of the Patent and Trademark Office, appears
in a patent and a showing has been made that such mistake occurred in good
faith, the Commissioner may, upon payment of the required fee, issue a
certificate of correction, if the correction does not involve such changes in
the patent as would constitute new matter or would require reexamination. Such patent,
together with the certificate, shall have the same effect and operation in law
on the trial of actions for causes thereafter arising as if the same had been
originally issued in such corrected form. [Emphasis added.]
Two separate statutory
requirements must be met before a certificate of correction for an applicant's
mistake may issue. The first statutory requirement concerns the nature, i.e.,
type, of the mistake for which a correction is sought. The mistake must be:
(1) of a clerical
nature,
(2) of a typographical
nature, or
(3) a mistake of minor
character.
The second statutory requirement concerns the nature of the
proposed correction. The correction must not involve changes which would:
(1) constitute new
matter or
(2) require
reexamination.
If the mistake sought to
be corrected is not of the type proper for correction by a Certificate of
Correction, PTO need not consider whether an applicant's proposed correction
would involve new matter or require reexamination.
Even if the mistake is of the proper type, a certificate of correction cannot
issue if the proposed correction involves changes which would constitute new
matter or require reexamination.
1. The first request for Certificate of Correction
Petitioner's mistake is
not of a clerical nature, typographical nature, or one of minor character.
Hence, the mistake is not one which can be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 255.
The first request states
that it is the "current understanding and opinion" of petitioner's
attorneys that (Paper No. 24, page 2):
a clerical or
typographical error occurred in connection with the preparation of the reissue
application, so that claim 8 which they intended to be dependent on claim 7 was
submitted as being dependent on claim 1.
*6 The first request was accompanied by declarations of petitioner's
attorneys, Bradley B. Geist, Esq., and Marina Larson, Esq.
Mr. Geist stated that
prior to the drafting of reissue claims 7 and 8, he and Ms. Larson agreed that:
a claim must be
presented in the reissue which had a scope identical to the scope of the
independent claim [claim 1] in the [original patent].
Mr. Geist also stated
that claims 7 and 8 were thereafter drafted to achieve the agreement. Mr. Geist further stated that
the error arose:
probably during the
original typing of claim 8 from a handwritten draft (since it was my practice to prepare handwritten drafts), and
that claim 8 should have been dependent from claim 7.
Ms. Larson stated that
she and Mr. Geist agreed that a claim must be presented in the reissue which
had a scope identical to the scope of the independent claim 1 in the original
patent, and that claims 7 and 8 were drafted to achieve that agreement. Ms.
Larson further stated that the error arose:
perhaps during the
original typing of claim 8 from a handwritten draft, and that claim 8 should
have been dependent from claim 7.
She still further stated that her efforts to locate handwritten
drafts of the reissue application have not been successful.
The statements by Mr.
Geist and Ms. Larson are inadequate to show that a clerical or a typographical
mistake occurred. At most, the statements demonstrate only that Mr. Geist
and/or Ms. Larson did not implement their stated intent. In their statements,
Mr. Geist and Ms. Larson use speculative words, i.e., "probably" and
"perhaps," in associating the alleged mistake to the process of
typing from a handwritten draft.
Moreover, there is no
evidence of the existence of any handwritten draft. Mr. Geist declared that
"it was [his] general practice to prepare handwritten drafts," but that does not mean that on
this occasion there actually was a handwritten draft. Even if there had been a
handwritten draft, it is uncertain on this record that draft claim 8 was to
depend from draft claim 7.
Absent very unique and
unusual circumstances, a clerical or typographical mistake should be manifest
from the contents of the file of the patent sought to be corrected, i.e., the
file of the reissue patent in this particular case. For example, if the
specification refers to degrees in Celsius and the claims recite merely
degrees, it might be said that a clerical error occurred in not reciting
degrees Celsius in the claims. Another example would be where (1) numerous references
are submitted with a disclosure statement (37 CFR § § 1.97-1.98); (2) the references are discussed by the examiner in
an Office action; (3) but one reference inadvertently is not listed by the
applicant in a form for listing references, i.e., Form 1449 (see MPEP, § 609); and (4) thus, the one reference is not
printed on the resulting patent. One might reasonably say that a clerical error
occurred in not listing the reference in Form 1449; the error would be apparent
from the file because the reference was discussed in the disclosure statement.
Likewise, a typographical error is shown when one looking at a mis-typed word
immediately knows the correct spelling. Reference to "parol" evidence
beyond the patent file should not be necessary to establish the existence of a
clerical or typographical mistake.
*7 The PTO file of
the reissue application itself does not reflect that a clerical or typographical mistake was made
when claim 8 was made to depend from claim 1. On its face, claim 8, as
originally presented, reads fine and is consistent with petitioner's reissue
declaration which indicates that the petitioner sought to broaden the claims of
the original patent. The file of the reissue patent does not otherwise indicate
the existence of a clerical error in connection with the dependency of claim 8;
the petitioner has not pointed to anything in the file which refers to claim 8
as being dependent from claim 7 rather than claim 1.
Likewise, petitioner's
alleged mistake is not a mistake of "minor character." The difference
between having and not having a claim of particular scope is significant, and
especially significant in the context of a reissue patent.
Claim 8 in its present
form is without the limitation that the lens implant is made of polymethyl
methacrylate. If made to depend from claim 7, rather than claim 1, claim 8 will
have a limitation to polymethyl methacrylate. The mistake, whether it be viewed
as failing to have claim 8 depend from claim 7, or as failing to have a reissue
claim that is of the same scope as original claim 1, is not minor because it
results in the absence in the reissue patent of a claim of certain particular
scope.
Adding to an existing
patent a claim having a scope different from that of any claim already included
in the patent undoubtedly strengthens the patent. If the new claim is broader
in scope than any claim in the existing patent, the scope of coverage under the patent is
expanded; and if the new claim is narrower in scope than some or all of the
claims in the existing patent, the hierarchical claim-scope structure of the
patent is expanded. A more expansive hierarchical structure strengthens a
patent because each level in the claim- scope hierarchy represents a line of
defense for the patentee against charges of invalidity.
Moreover, this case
involves a reissue patent, which makes very important whether there is a
reissue claim having the same scope as an original patent claim. If there is,
an accused infringer cannot assert intervening rights under 35 U.S.C. § 252 as an affirmative defense; if there is
not, then the accused infringer can. See Kaufman Company Inc. v. Lantech Inc.,
807 F.2d 970, 977-78, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1202, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Seattle Box
Co., Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 829-30, 221
USPQ 568, 576-77 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In their statements, both Mr. Geist and Ms.
Larson indicate that it was their consideration of intervening rights which
resulted in their agreement that the reissue patent must include a claim which
has identical scope with original claim 1.
Since the alleged mistake
has not been shown to be a clerical mistake or a typographical mistake, and is
not a mistake of minor character, the first requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 255 concerning the nature of the mistake
sought to be corrected has not been met. A Certificate of Correction cannot issue even if the second requirement
concerning the nature of the proposed correction is met.
*8 Where a
proposed correction involves a change in claim scope, the reissue statute is
controlling, not the provisions of law governing Certificates of Correction.
Eagle Iron Works v. McLanahan Corporation, 429 F.2d 1375, 1383, 166 USPQ 225,
231 (3d Cir. 1970).
It is not necessary to
consider whether petitioner's proposed correction involves changes which would
require reexamination. Nevertheless, the following discussion is believed to be
appropriate.
Evidently, petitioner
believes that claim 8, if modified to depend from claim 7 rather than claim 1,
would have the same scope as original claim 1. Petitioner further believes that
because original claim 1 was previously examined, reexamination of corrected
claim 8 would not be required. However, it is not entirely clear that reissue
claim 8, after the proposed correction, would have a scope identical to
original claim 1.
In original claim 1, it
is only the free end of the fourth portion of each loop which must lie radially
outwards of the second portion of the other loop; in pertinent part, original
claim 1 reads:
[T]he end of said fourth portion remote from
said third portion being free and lying radially outwards of said second
portion of the other of said loops[.]
Reissue claim 8 would require the entire fourth portion of each
loop to lie radially outwards of the second portion of the other loop. In
pertinent part, reissue claim 8 reads:
[T]he fourth portion of
each loop lies radially outward from the second portion of the other loop[.]
Accordingly, reissue claim 8, even if made to depend from claim 7
to thereby add a limitation concerning the material with which the lens implant
is made, would not have identical scope with original claim 1.
Even if modified claim 8
were identical in scope with original claim 1, reexamination would nevertheless
be required. In a reissue patent application, even if some claims are identical
to certain original patent claims, PTO is nevertheless required to reexamine
all reissue application claims; that is because 35 U.S.C. § 131 requires examination of patent
applications, and 35 U.S.C. § 251 makes
applicable to reissue proceedings all statutory provisions governing original
applications subject to one exception not applicable here. Section 251 of Title
35 states:
The provisions of this
title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications
for reissue of a patent . . . .
As stated in 37 CFR
§ 1.176:
§ 1.176 Examination of
reissue
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, subject to the rules relating thereto, except that division will
not be required . . . .
Furthermore, § 1440 of the
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure states, in pertinent part:
*9 Section 1.176
[37 CFR § 1.176] provides that an
original claim, if re-presented in a reissue application, will be subject to
reexamination and along with the entire application, will be fully examined in
the same manner subject to the same rules relating thereto, as if being
presented for the first time in an original application . . . . [Emphasis
added.]
Had petitioner not made
the mistake now alleged when he filed the reissue application, claim 8 as
dependent on claim 7 would have been reexamined during the reissue proceeding,
even if it had the same scope as original claim 1. For that reason, it would be
improper to now permit a correction of the alleged mistake without subjecting
modified claim 8 to reexamination. Accordingly, petitioner's proposed
correction of claim 8 involves changes which would require reexamination.
2. The second request for Certificate of Correction
Petitioner, via the
correction proposed in the second request for Certificate of Correction, seeks
to add new claim 9, which is in all respects the same as original claim 1
except for one apparently mis-typed word appearing in original claim 1.
Petitioner asserts that the mistake is the same as that alleged in the first
request for Certificate of Correction, and characterizes the mistake as
"the potential absence of a claim in the reissue that is identical to a
claim in the original patent" (Paper No. 30, page 1). As further stated in
petitioner's reconsideration request of January 7, 1991:
By the two requested Certificates
of Correction, patentee seeks to correct an error which arose during the
prosecution of the reissue application whereby no claim is present in the
reissue of absolutely identical scope to a claim in the original patent.
As already discussed
above in connection with the first request for Certificate of Correction, the
failure to include in the reissue application a claim of the same scope as
original claim 1 is not a mistake of minor character. Additionally, the
specific failure to include a claim written out as now proposed independent
claim 9 is not a clerical or a typographical mistake.
Petitioner and his
attorneys do not allege, and there is no evidence demonstrating, that there was
at any time a handwritten draft of the reissue application which included an
independent claim 9 as now proposed. Neither petitioner
nor his attorneys have alleged that when filing and prosecuting the reissue
application they intended to include a claim written out in the same form as
now proposed independent claim 9. Rather, the second request for Certificate of
Correction reveals that the thought of adding independent claim 9 is for
avoiding the opinion expressed in the decision of July 11, 1990, that causing
claim 8 to depend from claim 7 does not necessarily result in a claim having
the same scope as original claim 1.
For the foregoing
reasons, not including a claim in the reissue application exactly like proposed
independent claim 9 was not a clerical or typographical mistake or a mistake of
minor character. Rather, it was a mistake in judgment. Accordingly, the first
requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 255
concerning the nature of the mistakes correctable by a Certificate of
Correction is not met. For that reason alone, the second request for
Certificate of Correction should be denied.
*10 Even assuming
that the first requirement of 35 U.S.C. §
255 is met, the second requirement that the proposed correction would
not require reexamination is not satisfied. As discussed above, 35 U.S.C. § 131 requires examination of patent
applications, and 35 U.S.C. § 251 makes
applicable to reissue proceedings all statutory provisions governing original
applications for patent subject to one exception not applicable here.
Had the petitioner
included in the reissue application a claim written out exactly like now-proposed independent claim
9, it would have been reexamined during the reissue proceeding notwithstanding
the fact that it has the same scope as that of original claim 1. 37 CFR § 1.176; §
1440, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Thus, it would be improper
now to permit the addition of independent claim 9. For that additional reason,
petitioner's proposed correction to add independent claim 9 to the reissue
patent involves changes which would require reexamination.
ORDER
Upon consideration of
petitioner's request dated January 7, 1991, for reconsideration of the denial
of petitioner's first request for Certificate of Correction, it is
ORDERED that the first
request is DENIED.
Upon consideration of
petitioner's request dated January 7, 1991, for reconsideration of the decision
which denied petitioner's second request for Certificate of Correction, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that
the second request is also DENIED.
19 U.S.P.Q.2d 1049
END OF DOCUMENT