Results for prosecution history estoppel.
The concept of prosecution history estoppel from utility patents applies to design patents as well. Amendments made in response to a restriction for a design patent can result in prosecution history estoppel.
The Federal Circuit concludes that a district court was correct in construing various claim terms as having the same meaning, in spite of apparent claim differentiation and broadening amendments made with respect to some of the terms during prosecution.
A presumption of prosecution history estoppel may be rebutted by a showing of unforeseeability of the alleged equivalent at the time of the narrowing amendment or by a showing of tangentiality of the alleged equivalent with respect to the rationale for the narrowing amendment.
Regarding prosecution history estoppel, the Supreme Court establishes a presumption that a narrowing amendment made for a reason related to patentability surrenders the entire territory between the original and amended claim limitations, and that this presumption may be rebutted under certain instances.