Legal Opinion

In re Prater

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided January 16, 1969No. 7987PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Eicii, Judge,

dissenting from the grant of the petition, with whom Almond, Judge, joins:

The Petition for Rehearing, filed by the Patent Office, should be denied. None of the reasons advanced for granting shows compliance with our rule on rehearings. In effect, as hereinafter explained, our four-to-nothing opinion is the result of a careful ^consideration of an earlier opinion, which is equivalent to a rehearing.

Rehearing at this time can serve only to foster uncertainty in the law, to encourage the Patent Office in its policy of refusing to follow *1377what this reviewing court has now declared the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Thomas v. CollinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Application of Joseph R. Riden, Jr., and James P. FlavinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
  3. Application of Victor MillsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Application of Albert W. MusgraveCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970
  2. Arshal v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1980
  3. Application of Albert W. MusgraveCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1970

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API