In re White

D.C. Circuit

In re White

23 F.2d 776, 57 App. D.C. 355, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3235

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 5, 1927

DocketNo. 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 F.2d 776 (In re White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re White, 23 F.2d 776, 57 App. D.C. 355, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3235 (D.C. Cir. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from decisions of the Patent Office tribunals refusing reissue of a patent containing claims 3 to 7, inclusive.

During the prosecution of appellant’s original application, several claims were rejected on prior patents. Thereupon appellant deliberately withdrew the broader claims of his application to avoid the references, and a patent was granted with limited claims. Nearly 2% years after this rejection on the references, appellant filed his application for reissue, alleging that his patent is “inopera/tive for the reason that the specification thereof is defective, and that such defect consists particularly in the failure to include certain claims that petitioner is entitled to.” The appealed claims are even broader than the claims that were deliberately withdrawn.

It is settled law that the deliberate withdrawal of a claim in order to secure a patent is conclusive of the presumption that there has been no inadvertence, accident, or mistake, within the meaping of section 4916, R. S. (35 USCA § 64; Comp. St. § 9461). In re Denton, 12 App. D. C. 504; In re Lacroix, 30 App. D. C. 299; Ex parte Hoiland, 50 App. D. C. 268, 270 F. 704; Dobson v. Lees, 137 U. S. 258, 11 S. Ct. 71, 34 L. Ed. 652; Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co., 150 U. S. 38, 14 S. Ct. 28, 37 L. Ed. 989.

The decision of the Patent Office was right, and is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from decisions of the Patent Office tribunals refusing reissue of a patent containing claims 3 to 7, inclusive.

During the prosecution of appellant’s original application, several claims were rejected on prior patents. Thereupon appellant deliberately withdrew the broader claims of his application to avoid the references, and a patent was granted with limited claims. Nearly 2% years after this rejection on the references, appellant filed his application for reissue, alleging that his patent is “inopera/tive for the reason that the specification thereof is defective, and that such defect consists particularly in the failure to include certain claims that petitioner is entitled to.” The appealed claims are even broader than the claims that were deliberately withdrawn.

It is settled law that the deliberate withdrawal of a claim in order to secure a patent is conclusive of the presumption that there has been no inadvertence, accident, or mistake, within the meaping of section 4916, R. S. (35 USCA § 64; Comp. St. § 9461). In re Denton, 12 App. D. C. 504; In re Lacroix, 30 App. D. C. 299; Ex parte Hoiland, 50 App. D. C. 268, 270 F. 704; Dobson v. Lees, 137 U. S. 258, 11 S. Ct. 71, 34 L. Ed. 652; Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co., 150 U. S. 38, 14 S. Ct. 28, 37 L. Ed. 989.

The decision of the Patent Office was right, and is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 F.2d 776, 57 App. D.C. 355, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 3235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-white-cadc-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack