IN RE ROBERT SKVORECZ案件資訊：
本案為BPAI（Board of Patent Appeal and Interferences，是PTAB前身）的上訴案，系爭專利申請案：09/772,278，為US5,996,948的再領證申請案（reissue），判決日：September 3, 2009。
系爭案母案為US5,996,948，關於一種金屬線火爐，這是一種廚房內用於保溫食物的裝置。主要專利特徵是改良金屬線支架為可以彼此套接與分離，腳的部分設計有偏差，使得可以相互套接。
特別引起爭議的是，當審查委員於8/12/1999發出核准通知後，申請人於10/14/1999提出修正要修正Figs. 12, 13，使其更符合明書內容。修正的部分就是下圖中的偏差（offset 42），申請人主張此修正並未改變專利範圍的解讀。最後，審查委員並未同意修正，申請案仍於12/17/1999領證。
（未修正）
上述母案核准專利後，申請人提出再領證（reissue）程序：
03/15/2001 再領證申請
審查階段遭受到4次核駁（2次non-final, 2次final）。
03/25/2005提出訴願通知（notice of appeal）
07/21/2005 Appeal Brief Filed
10/27/2005 Appeal Brief Filed
03/28/2007 Patent Board Decision (Examiner Affirmed in Part) - 核駁Claims 1-5, 7
05/21/2007 Request for Rehearing of Patent Board Decision
11/19/2007 Decision on Reconsideration - Denied
01/17/2008 Appeal to Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit (CAFC)
09/03/2009 Decision by Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit – Reversed
回到BPAI：
06/02/2011 申請人修正專利範圍與答辯
08/23/2011 面詢
10/12/2011 最終再領證檢核
10/21/2011 核准通知
12/6/2011 再領證：USRE42988
母案雖獲准，當中審查委員否決申請人提出的修正請求，理由是產生新事物。
如此，申請人於3/15/2001提出再領證程序 - 09/772,278（之後的過程就如上述時間表），藉由再領證程序擴大專利範圍：
再領證審查結果引用以下前案，核駁claims 1-5, 7，claim 6是可核准專利範圍。前案如下：
案件進入訴願，除上述涉及102的核駁意見外，BPAI另作出兩項核駁理由：claim 5不明確以及claims 1-5, 7不滿足撰寫要求（35USC112），這時專利申請人Skvorecz可以提出再審（rehearing），或是重啟（reopen）USPTO審查程序，結果申請人是選擇訴願再審，BPAI仍是駁回本案。
102
文中的102新穎性討論主要著墨在金屬支架中的腳是否彼此有位移而能套接別的金屬支架，顯然引證案Buff並沒有此結構，系爭案對此應具有新穎性，不過訴願委員會仍說明因為系爭案claim 1採用開放式寫法"comprising"，因此認為解釋專利範圍時並非所有Claim 1描述的「金屬腳」都有位移(offset)，也就是Skvorecz案專利範圍的解釋會包括沒有位移(offset)的金屬腳；更者，即便Skvorecz案發明所有的金屬腳都有位移，引證Buff還是有具有位移的金屬腳。如此解釋claim 1不具新穎性。
然而，以上解釋被CAFC否決，因為USPTO/BPAI錯誤解釋"comprising"，因為開放式轉接詞"comprising"的解釋是發明並不排除專利範圍中所描述以外的元件。
至少解讀Buff可知，Buff並非如Skvorecz案申請專利範圍記載每個金屬腳都有位移(offset)，因此CAFC駁回BPAI新穎性的核駁意見。
Claim 1: A wire chafing stand comprising an upper a first rim of wire steel which forms a closed geometrical configuration circumscribing a first surface area, a lower rim of wire steel forming a closed geometrical configuration circumscribing a second surface area with said first surface area being larger than said second surface area and having a plurality of at least two wire legs with each wire leg having two upright sections interconnected to one another at a location below the lower rim in a configuration forming a base support for the stand to rest upon with each upright section extending upwardly from said base support to form an angle equal to or greater than 90° with respect to a horizontal plane through said base support and being affixed to the upper first rim adjacent one end thereof and to said lower rim at a relatively equal distance below the point of attachment to said upper rim and further comprising a plurality of offsets located either in said upright sections of said wire legs or in said upper first rim for laterally displacing each wire leg relative to said upper first rim to facilitate the nesting of a multiplicity of stands into one another without significant wedging.
112
MPEP 2173.02 Determining Whether Claim Language is Definite
Definiteness of claim language must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but in light of:
(A) The content of the particular application disclosure;
(B) The teachings of the prior art; and
(C) The claim interpretation that would be given by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art at the time the invention was made.
請求項用語明確性(definiteness)分析應考量：(A)申請案揭露內容；(B)先前技術的教示；以及(C)相關領域一般技術人員在發明完成的時間點(當時技術水平)對專利範圍的解釋。
USPTO審查再領證案（系爭案）時並無提出違反112的核駁意見，案件進入BPAI，BPAI委員認為系爭再領證案Claim 5為不明確，理由包括有元件缺乏前述基礎（antecedency），以及其中"segments"並未定義在說明書中。
Claim5: A wire chafing stand as defined in claim 1 wherein said plurality of offsets are welded to said wire legs at the separation of the upright sections into segments.
CAFC摘錄MPEP 2173.05(e) Lack of Antecedent Basis中兩句話：
"There is no requirement that the words in the claim must match those used in the specification disclosure."（讓專利工程師鬆一口氣，這裡說沒有要求請求項的用詞應對照說明書揭露內容）
"Obviously, however, the failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite."（缺乏明確前述基礎不總是造成專利範圍不明確）
我補一段："If the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite." Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1145 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992)（如果相關領域技術人員可以合理地確定申請專利範圍，則權利要求並非不明確）
基於以上規定，CAFC否決BPAI過度地用缺乏前述基礎與缺乏說明書支持的理由駁回本案。（"Subject to this potential amendment, the rejection on the ground of indefiniteness is reversed."）
CAFC重申，關於＂written description requirement＂，說明書撰寫要求目的是讓公眾理解發明內容，也是證明申請人所擁有的發明範圍。以開放的態度解釋發明內容，也就不會如BPAI拒絕本案系爭案申請人提出修正圖式會被認為是產生新事物的問題。
因為相關領域技術人員經參考說明書與圖式後，將可明確地理解圖中已經有金屬腳位移的特徵。因此CAFC"駁回"BPAI駁回本案不符112規定的決定。
Ron
