Chessin v. Robertson, 5600.
| Decision Date | 09 January 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 5600.,5600. |
| Citation | 61 App. DC 376,63 F.2d 267 |
| Parties | CHESSIN v. ROBERTSON, Commissioner of Patents. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Alexander Chessin, of New York City, for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, Solicitor of Patent Office, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
Appeal from a decree in the Supreme Court of the District dismissing appellant's bill, claimed to be authorized by section 4915, R. S. (section 63, tit. 35, U. S. C. 35 USCA § 63), against the Commissioner of Patents for the issuance of a patent to appellant "as specified in his claims."
On October 29, 1920, appellant filed his application for a patent. In due course the Examiner allowed fifty-two and rejected seven of the fifty-nine claims of the application. On appeal, the Board of Appeals on November 29, 1927, affirmed the decision of the Examiner in the rejection of the 7 claims. No appeal was taken from that decision, but on May 25, 1928, four days before the expiration of the six months' period for filing responsive action, appellant filed an amendment authorizing the cancellation of the seven rejected claims, but substituting five new claims. This amendment was held nonresponsive by the Examiner, and appellant was advised that his application had become abandoned. A petition to the Commissioner to revive under the provisions of section 4894, R. S. (section 37, tit. 35, U. S. C. 35 USCA § 37), was filed. This petition was denied because not accompanied by a responsive amendment. The Commissioner was careful to add to his decision that "the petition will be reconsidered if the applicant so requests and accompanies that request with an amendment which the examiner reports puts the case in condition for allowance and at the same time pays the final fee so that the patent on this application which has been pending for nearly eight years can be issued without further delay."
Section 4894, R. S., requires all applications for patents to be completed and prepared for examination within six months after filing the application, and failure of the applicant in that regard, or to prosecute his application within six months after any action therein, works an abandonment of the application, "unless it be shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Patents that such delay was unavoidable."
In Re Carvalho, 47 App. D. C. 584, it was ruled that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoover Co v. Coe
...31 Butterworth v. Hoe, 112 U.S. 50, 5 S.Ct. 25, 28 L.Ed. 656; Shoemaker v. Robertson, 60 App.D.C. 345, 54 F.2d 456; Chessin v. Robertson, 61 App.D.C. 376, 63 F.2d 267; Cherry-Burrell Corp. v. Coe, App.D.C., 143 F.2d 372. 32 American Cable Co. v. John A. Roebling's Sons Co., 62 App.D.C. 168,......
-
Gilbert v. Marzall
...courts to consider claims not considered on the merits by the Patent Office. Lucke v. Coe, 63 App.D.C. 61, 69 F.2d 379; Chessin v. Robertson, 61 App.D.C. 376, 63 F.2d 267, certiorari denied 289 U.S. 725, 53 S.Ct. 523, 77 L.Ed. 1475; Durham v. Seymour, 6 App.D.C. 78. The statute expressly pr......
-
Morganroth v. Quigg
...that court held that the Commissioner's refusal to revive a patent application "is not subject to judicial review." Chessin v. Robertson, 63 F.2d 267 (D.C.Cir.1933). The theory apparently was that since 35 U.S.C. Sec. 133 provided that patent applications that were deemed abandoned could be......
-
Rendleman v. Ladd
...Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 59, 143 F.2d 12; Lucke v. Coe, 1934, 63 App.D.C. 61, 69 F.2d 379; Chessin v. Robertson, 1933, 61 App.D.C. 376, 63 F.2d 267, certiorari denied 289 U.S. 725, 53 S.Ct. 523, 77 L.Ed. 1475; Shoemaker v. Robertson, 1931, 60 App.D.C. 345, 54 F.2d 456......