Rusche v. Cobi

290 F.2d 593, 48 C.C.P.A. 1003
CourtCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals
DecidedApril 6, 1961
DocketSpecial Patent Docket No. 91
StatusPublished

This text of 290 F.2d 593 (Rusche v. Cobi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Customs and Patent Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rusche v. Cobi, 290 F.2d 593, 48 C.C.P.A. 1003 (ccpa 1961).

Opinion

Per Curiam :

Involved here are a motion by Cobi to dismiss Eusche’s appeal to this court, and a petition by Eusche for a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner to grant an extension of Eusche’s time for perfecting said appeal.

A similar situation was involved in our opinion of November 3, 1960, in which both the motion and petition were denied and the case remanded to the Patent Office for further consideration.

It has now been established that a memorandum from the Manuscript Branch of the Patent Office, dated July 11,1960, upon which our first action was based, was erroneously dated and was not actually prepared until July 13, 1960, two days after Eusche’s time for docketing his appeal in this court had expired. Under these circumstances the action of the First Assistant Commissioner in refusing to extend Eusche’s time for docketing the appeal was correct, and dismissal of the appeal is in order.

Cobi’s motion to dismiss is granted. Eusche’s petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

Smith, J., dissents.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
290 F.2d 593, 48 C.C.P.A. 1003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rusche-v-cobi-ccpa-1961.