~ Forum filed DJ action, DC granted SJ to Forum for lack of WD, FV appealed
~ U.S. 8,215,213 relates “to supporting assemblies” (“arbors”) “for holding a workpiece”
~ Reissued as RE45,878 with seven new claims including “arbor-less embodiment”; FV argued skilled artisan would understand from specification that arbors are optional (including expert declaration)
~ FC panel explained that “for broadening reissue claims,” it is not enough “that an invention…was suggested or indicated in the specification” (Indus. Chem., US 1934; Corbin, US 1893; Antares, FC 2014 (“the ‘same invention’ requirement”); In re Amos, FC 1991; Revolution Eyewear, FC 2009)
~ FC panel determined insufficient WD, e.g., “[t]he few references…to machining in general…and the boilerplate language that modifications can be made” insufficient, and declaration found insufficient as not aiding “the court in understanding what the instruments say”.