Braren v. Horner, Patent Appeal No. 2600.

• Decision Date: 27 May 1931
• Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 2600.
• Citation: 18 CCPA 1408,49 F.2d 984
• Parties: BRAREN v. HORNER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

18 CCPA 1408, 49 F.2d 984 (1931)

BRAREN v. HORNER.

Patent Appeal No. 2600.

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

May 27, 1931.

Edward H. Cumpston, of Rochester, N. Y., for appellant.

Allen E. Peck, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges.

GRAHAM, Presiding Judge.

A petition for rehearing has been filed herein, and the same is hereby denied. There seems to be no reason for a change in the views expressed by us in our opinion filed in this case on February 25, 1931. 47 F.(2d) 358.

It is argued that the court failed to pass upon this question: The Board of Appeals held that Braren was estopped from claiming that the invention in issue was a new and improved drive, because he did not seek, under Rule 109 of the Patent Office, to add counts covering such broader claim. What we said in our original opinion, on the general merits of the claims, we believe disposed of this question. Certainly Braren did nothing in this particular which ought to close his mouth from seeking a proper legal construction of the counts in the interference. Estoppels, not ordinarily favored, do not arise in this way.

The court was advised, on the argument of this case, that the reference patents contained in the record, were cited on the original Braren application. It now appears, by the agreed statements of counsel, that they were cited upon the Horner application.

Our attention is called by the petitioner to our holding that Horner should have appealed and assigned error if he intended to ask for a finding of an earlier date of conception than that awarded him by the Patent Office tribunals. As to this, it is contended that, the decision below being favorable to Horner on all the counts, he had no right of appeal. On more mature consideration, we are of the opinion the point is well taken, and that the whole field of priority of conception, on this record, is now before us. Therefore our former opinion is hereby modified in this respect. In this connection, the following authorities are thought to be in point: Guarantee Company, etc. v. Phenix Ins. Co. (C. C. C.) 124 F. 170; Rogers v. Penobscot Mining Co. (C. C. A.) 154 F. 606; Smart v. Wright (C. C. A.) 227 F. 84; Millward v. Vulcan Furnace, etc. (C. C. A.) 26 F.(2d) 78.

In view of this holding, we have re-examined the record, and are convinced that the tribunals of the Patent Office did not err in holding Horner to be entitled to no...