*1 53 CCPA Application of L. REESE. Arthur Appeal No. 7596.
United States Court of Customs Appeals. and Patent
April
Smith, J., dissented. *2 though 197(b), he ad- had from Rule technically come mits he has not provisions, rule we think that
within its
germane
here.
It re-
is not
to the issue
request
only
lates
the time for
Appeals
for a
the Board of
or modifica-
or reconsideration
by
us.
tion of its decision
not
appealing
to this
The time
governed by
court
Rule
Patent Office
304, promulgated in accordance with 35
142,
no con
makes
§
complied
tention
he
with that
has
Rather,
197(b)
rule.
he
that Rule
Bruce,
Brosler,
provides
&
exception
Bruce
Charles 0.
for an
to Rule 304.
Berkeley, Cal.,
appellant.
That
is not the fact.
C.,
Washington,
Joseph Schimmel,
D.
application
The
of Rule 304 to
for Commissioner of Patents.
60-day
the facts here is as
follows:
provision, measuring
WORLEY,
Judge,
from
Before
Chief
29,
ALMOND,
RICH, MARTIN,
decision of the
on
June
SMITH
apply
timely petition
Judges.
does not
because a
July 24,
was filed on
decision on
The
was dated
PER CURIAM:
September 21, 1964, which started the
Appellant
filed a
30-day provision
running.1
in Rule 304
granting
mo-
our
order
rule,
Under the
time
ex
his
tion of the Patent Office to dismiss
pired
21, 1964,
October
and the notice
ground
appeal on the
it was not
was not filed until 12
filed and
said
moves
vacate
thereafter.
order.
taking ap
While the times for
petitioner argues,
as he did in the
rule,
are stated in a Patent Office
motion,
opposition to the Patent Office
compliance
required
with them is
stat
he
entitled to the “benefit”
provides
ute. 35 U.S.C.
that an
(b).
lengthy
Patent
Rule 197
Office
applicant
shall file
his notice
arguing
mostly
devoted
within such time as
why appellant
is entitled to that “bene-
appoints (not
sixty days
less than
fit.”
from”)
appealed
“the date of the decision
mandatory.
and it
Assuming,
We are without
arguendo,
appel
power
requirement.2
to waive the
lant is entitled to whatever
is to
benefit
rejection
request
earlier
on
1. Petitioner
filed a second
for re
appeal,
claims,
three other
not
September
on
consideration with the board
an affirmance
opin
Adverse
reversal.
which was denied
decisions,
reasons,
supporting
except
their
ion on October
for the
proper subject
appeal.
given
are the
of an
consideration
to it. We deem that
request
since, regardless
irrelevant
say
2. This
not to
the Commissioner
appellant’s contention,
the date of the
requirement
power
without
to waive the
from is June
not
clearly
for he
Rule
can under the
opinion
ding the fact
withsiai
dated
provision
Eckey Watson,
of Rule 183.
v.
September
provided
rea
additional
U.S.App.D.C. 16,
106
question
SMITH, Judge (dissenting). rehearing for of the a have been “overlooked or ordinarily engender jority opinion ed” in the tion matters of substance which office issue. The instant original majority predicated inal looked or of the reasons for tion for significance our Rule 7 is to miss cision of granting out stating my has decided to state its reasons for its and seems to me to In the opinion. opinion appellant’s of a determination rehearing. instant of that misapprehended” for reconsideration should not original reasons. and hence are of points I or a bring my then case, require motion, lengthy my determination of the dissent case is either a I believe were “over- to the court’s atten- dissented of Now the motion was dissent from the rehearing issues raised misapprehend- deny an granted dissent. The also without an in the lengthy ma- which elaboration continuing exception to dis- under with- orig- peti- was de- in pellant follows: board’s decision. Appellant also took and erred in tion that would be amenable to evi- to its we were in error. were dence sion, sion adequate and it is believed the claims On On the Appellant’s This [******] our “action on September its pointed the leading holding its decision dated June “original decision,” claims board has basis bottom 2 and 5 error interpretation out that: to a conclusion argued second as to 1, in our In this of 2 and will petition,” and such consideration. given * page claims foregoing point * * reconsideration of claims some 84 treatment 9 of its deci- petition, some reason 1, is that stating the contrary 2 and provide indica- discus- why 3, we 5, original appellant’s and to We do so utilizes the have considered platform find tentions and that he is its and correct. apparent opinion, shall do I will likewise. As from our * * Therefore, we *. we [erred] gave A statement of the facts which modify our decision reverse and rise to in this jection [Empha- claims 2 and 5. understanding case is to an essential sis added.] legal presented issue to this court for additionally The board determination. facts show I believe the stated that appellant’s interpretation its claims Rules, the Patent and 6 in the ma- decision” did not Office jority place day court, an denies him his unreasonable limitation on those not our to entertain a opinion It is custom claims, “of the it was petition for reconsideration claims, present consonant period specified properly outside of the petition, do the tenor “any 197(b). provides, clearly 197(b) concept [Rule protect novel ** request or or prior patentable art over the reconsideration, modification recommended allowance then The board decision, thirty must be filed within claim. of a new days from the date agree point state at this would decision, unless is so that decision argument above that the become, modified deci opinion a “new the board was and the Board legal lawfully composed sion.” Where spe- However, under the so states.”] decisions, entity empowered render case, we cial instant are facts of reconsidering the evidence making exception will entertain reinterprets reverses its *4 petition. [Emphasis the instant add- art, a prior me that it is clear to ed. Applying has been made.1 new decision the terms of being petition” shown lant’s notice rected to this (b)) which is “the decision within 30 infra, (Rule it is Rule 304 of “new days appeal 304) for readily decision” after to this was seen “action timely filed, that (Rule appealed on the appel di as quest making any ehange the case or extent same but [*******] for reconsideration. that we is denied with opinion has been have in our on the first considered the granted [Emphasis respect opinion to re- added.] from.” 35 U.S.C. 142. § 1964, 2, On November days September 24, 1964, some 87 On ap- filed in the Patent a notice of Office “original days and 3 after the decision” peal to this court. This was some 126 decision,” appellant filed after the “new days after the board’s deci- request a as claims reconsideration sion,” days some 42 after request submitting 4 and in his holding reversing “new decision” its diagram arguments. support a of his days claims some 17 board, some October opinion granting after the board’s third days “original decision,” its after request second for reconsider- and some 22 “new its ation wherein the refused to make board sion,” stating opinion, rendered a third any change “opinion in in the case.” as follows: appellant perfected ap- Thereafter his peal This recon- January to this In of court. sideration in the instant case. sent to of the Clerk this Court Finding appeal I do ren the board within which to notice of file a resolve dered decision does not as to those claims runs from the date factually question, the broader which took action on those paramount argument the Patent concern of claims. The quires solicitor’s ap case, an Office of whether the conclusion that different times right plicant appeal exist, depending has the an board decision the examiner’s wherein board when the took action on different rejection totally all reversed and This un- claims. find to be a claims stand allowed. 35 U.S.C. workable certainly scheme which is of solicitor, sepa- however, contemplated refuses not the Rules. inquiries. purposes procedure, orderly rate these two He For of process law, not “new” the board’s second decision was with sistent due I find it is not and did because “adverse” the hoard rendered a new decision anything claims set forth finally appealed. “new” as to the and the from the deci- taken argument only portion The solicitor’s sion a whole and not given dealing claims is that taken as to the decision time decisions and that claim. particularly check for to cover the should $265.00 estimat- be serve the alert printing ed cost public sup- record. Au- best interests of the gust 1965, twenty-five copies ap- ports playing instead of a technical pellant’s game ap- brief were delivered to the Clerk “rule” who would those proceed- of this Court. its decisions. This entire ing foreign here seems to me to be so September 22, 1965, receipt On jurisprudential concepts modern printed the Clerk of the and rec- brief argues strongly for far basic and reach- ord, opin- some 321 after the third ing appeal pro- reforms in Patent Office (October 16, 1964), ion cedures. Patents filed a mo- view, my despite contrary tion to extend to file a brief time as to indi- majority, the merits and to dismiss the “be- cations in the it is our jurisdiction duty cause the court lacks as a to construe court the statute by appel- to determine the issues raised rules of various the Patent Of- appeal (R-42), pari lant’s reasons fice in and be- materia to the end that right timely litigants cause preserved was not filed wherever possible. under Patent Office 304.” This granted ground (2), motion was based on agrees, As see and the Judge myself dissenting. Almond and the issue before court is whether Appellant present petition then filed the pellant’s appeal within the rehearing, which is now provisions of Rule 304 so con- when court for decision. strued. *5 passing, delay it to the seems me appears majority opinion It to be the part making the the of solicitor in the that: present strongly sug- motion to dismiss appealing The time for to this court gests present that the time factor in the governed Patent Office Rule appeal might here is as certain as one promulgated in with 35 accordance suppose reading majority opin- from the appellant no and makes ion and the solicitor’s belated motion. complied contention that he has To me it of savors the unconscionable to [Emphasis that rule. added.] encourage approach such a technical contrary I find this to be to problem justice. in the administration of Appellant the facts of ar- record. Appellant perfected appeal here had his gued before court that this the board’s beyond point and carried it far the September 21, (the decision of sec- any judicial where tribunal should see opinion) ond was a He “new decision.” approve rigid fit the and unfounded interpreted then Rule 304 as follows: approach urged technical here the so- forgotten appellant required Thus licitor. It was file sometimes duty appeal courts, despite heavy thirty days dockets, his of within of give litigant date day of the Board’s on his his in court. decision It duty seems for reconsideration. Such de to me also should be the 16, 1964, encourage of cision was dated October and the Patent Office to and compliance litigants through assist of Buie its maze rules 80k regulations (written unwritten) filed and his on November and and well to the end he within the time theref too should allowed have his day public [Emphasis agency or.2 added.] in court. As a Appellant argues “Opposition also Com- 2. to Motion See estopped arguing Dismiss,” missioner should be at filed October present p. Appellant here of decision first, decision, board was not the board’s oppose because did not rehearing the Commissioner in accordance action was Rules, and the second there- with the Patent Office pro- any right timely therefore has waived filed fore that his second, here; as the periods specified by test the Rules. within the portion apparent of also may It now be examined. Rule (3) conveniently above 304 identified under may portions relevant days period from 30 to 60 covers the grouped as follows: as after the “decision” of the board filing the notice 1. The time filing peti- consequences states of Court the U.S. reasons day period specified tion outside the Appeals Customs and recognizes in the rule. It * * * sixty days from the petitions under the rule extend Board of the date filing time for a notice of to this ** Appeals *. days court and no after 30 any proceeding or “decision” If a thirty day operate is filed within thereon can to extend the consideration period specified (1). The solicitor’s the date after * * * argument, motion to dis- his of the Board thirty days appeal, portion miss the that the the time is extended (3) grouping petition. 304 here considered under action on the set the time for notice or recon- 3. No at 60 filed outside the time sideration obviously decision” is in error inas specified herein after such deci- provisions grouped (2) case the under any sion, proceedings on such nor nullity. then above would be a operate to extend shall purposes por- period sixty days For of this hereinabove grouped pars. provided. tions of Rule under (1) (3) inapplicable above are portions apparent identi- timely petition filed a for re- (2) (1) be read fied above must hearing (2). under ad- so together they provide two alternatives ignores mits as to but it what I con- litigant: either, un- for the dissatisfied sider to be the relevant considerations (1), der file a grouped under above. days or, (2), "petition for file a *6 any help rehearing Can Rule 304 be of further 30 or reconsideration” within determining days. period the timeliness of runs either case the appeal? The critical facts to which from “the decision” of the board. Where applied petition Rule 304 must follows: a be are as for or reconsidera- September 21, (1) 1964, filed, day period On the board took tion the 60 petition.” filing “action on the Accord- for to this [first] the notice ing grouping (2) provisions inapplicable. appel- (2) court is Under days appellant days had lant has on the 30 then 30 “action petition” which to file a notice and the to file the notice of jurisdiction board retained in the case this court. arguments board, feel that the above are neces- § a member of the 35 U.S.C. sary here, Supreme contesting estopped to succeed Court he is therefore recently Manson, stated, granting in Brenner for v. of a second that concerning decision; S.Ct. footnote 6 resulted a third, appellant relied, the Commissioner: detri- to his * * * silence, As a member of the Board and an ment on the Commissioner’s responsible selecting pre- estoppel equitable the official for in his favor arises panels, membership venting of its 35 from contest- the Commissioner (1964 ed.), may ing § 7 it be considered board rendered a new that appropriate that sion. by majority Board bound determinations. not with the does deal The arguments Appellant’s arguments the Commis- nor does the solicitor above prefer sioner, in here refuses to be bound to hold While answer them. determination, ground all the board’s become on the convincing. mean- the more filed within Rules, ing do and therefore period. for that The record shows do majority not believe that the meets during appellant, period, sec- filed a or decides what seems to me to be the rehearing. board, ond us, e., i. where does issue petition a second period, rehearing, within this took “action on the if such is a lawful petition.” Appellant redress, filed his plan [second] method of fit into days thereafter, regarding more First, timeliness? days than 30 any after action on the is clear that Rule 304 or other Pat- first days but less than require board, ac- ent Office rule cannot petition. tion on the second when jurisdiction, is vested with grant deny rehearing. 35 U.S.C. 7§ majority interprets Rule 304 so “The states: Board of has sole appeal expired as to find “the time for power grant rehearings,” and 35 U.S. 21, 1964,” October which is 30 provides C. 6 the Commissioner the board took “action on the [first] * * * “may regulations, establish petition.” majority reasons law, not inconsistent with for the conduct the second is “irrelevant since proceedings in the Patent Office.” * * * the date of the decision prohibition by There is no rule or ** from is June 29 prevents statute which of such The construction of the or reason- rule rehearing. second Thus, ing support majority thereof which proceeded lawfully in submit- places ting thus on Rule not clear to me. the second holding majority From the jurisdiction board which then had (1) seems that its is that over the case. The first Commissioner had petition irrevocably authority the time within sets prevent no the board from e., which to granting file notice of such a second (2) petition;” hearing. after “action on the petitions “irrelevant;” second are Thus, petitions are not to be (3) applicant file shall his notice considered “irrelevant” as majority within the time fixed 35 U.S.C. § Assuming does. the board desires to which the considers to be a petition, entertain power a second is its mandatory provision; on the grant rehearing subject to the time provides facts this case bar the finds in Rule 304? I appeal expired the time for October imagine cannot power the board’s to be clearly so limited as the Commissioner authority lacks to control My objections majority’s posi- to the power petitions, exercise of its as to such tion are Rule 304 does as follows: 35 U.S.C. 7. What the §§ Commission- provide one there shall be but directly er not do he cannot in- do *7 irrevocably petition time sets the which directly thi’ough Rule 304. (2) filing appeal; second notice of for In the fact situation before us the as shown petitions are not “irrelevant” board power exercised its lawful and it g., (see e. by past of this court decisions granted petition rehearing the second for Schutte, 44 CCPA F.2d 244 In re day within period following the 30 its face 922); (3) on its 304 silent “action petition.” on the At [first] case; appeal in this for as to the time days time there remained 5 in which to prohi- (4) 35 142 both U.S.C. § file a days of notice within 30 against and a Commissioner the bition after petition action on the first under discretionary authority the of source Rule 304. his discre- exercise must Commissioner filing accept requested Would this fact be to fatal to tion when right e., to limits outside the time does Rule 304 re- a notice quire Watson, 304, Eckey appellant specified ap- file v. a notice of in Rule day period? 891 within U.S.App.D.C. F.2d this 5 268 doI 106 believe so. It is obvious that (1959). the board
469 delaying until on them the may require in time more cases some day period here errone- Rule 304 as 30 considering petition rehear- second ously applied has run. following the day period action ing. The 30 attorneys Litigants should not and their petition wherein board the on the first pitfall subjected a technical be to such well have decision could rendered pursuing appeal. the On facts on the took action the board run before case, days, appellant from Fri- 5 juris- this had petition. the board had As second day, the date the filed, October petition I the was when diction Wednesday, October board’s much was entitled to as believe 21, 1964, in notification which receive necessary on the in order to act time as granting of the second board’s petition. In case it clear appeal. Un- and file a notice peti- not dismiss second did board reasoning majority’s the result der the Perhaps on it. tion or refuse to act day is the same no what the board imply matter second means to petition. took action on the second “irrelevant” because board acted on the second within question, There remains where days petition. after action the first does a second fit plan regarding into the time- agree position. do not such a I liness ? determined must be This accepted If this consideration is as con we can much time after answer how trolling would, limit petition” board’s “action on the [second] power board’s more than one entertain did which to within file have require and would Considering appeal? only a notice of to render its Rule 304 and it seems to limit, I strict time leads believe liberally me that Rule should be con- wholly to a result unsanctioned preserve power strued to the board any majority’s statute or rule. hold judicially imposed without limitations ing making has the effect of second all grant rehearings. this view Under petitions irrelevant as to time within pellant to the should be entitled same 304, yet which to benefits accrue from the of a go say does so far petition. first the facts of this On case a second not consider would have “ac- rehearing.3 upon Must the board act petition” tion on filed as result petitions such within 30 “petition” The term decision. appli action on the first if an petitions in Rule 304 would thus mean right cant’s under Rule jurisdiction. had while the board preserved? I be do not believe that However, do not believe a forced (which the board can certain do not necessary struction of Rule 304 is to ar- imply happened case) in this that no ad just rive at a resolution of the issue appellate verse decisions will be rendered here. The enacted simple expedient, an- of entertain ing which, contrary other petitions major- rule to the purports majority appears following far as it to be to hold that the Grier, Office cannot F.2d act a case after re CCPA *8 in the has is filed this to the effect that Patent Office court. view authority majority’s holding, urge in a the I to act case after an would the appeal litigants peti in court. I continue to file second has been filed this rehearing clarify agree tions for in the extent the Patent order to may appeal, issues for from its or and the recede does Office point may otherwise, hold which render but also file a out facts moot. me it is within after action to this court To petitions question the first ex as second will not a Patent Office stay acting ercising jurisdiction it is time a notice of my litigant. Allen, contrary, view, party F.2d in In re to the a rules. law inso not the is 28 CCPA ity, provisions think grouped be considered. This must of Rule 304 197(b) provides perti- par. is Rule in which above. rationale part: seems clear “original nent to me and is: where the changed decision” is so as to following [by 197. Action decision decision,” post-deci- become “new a Appeals]. the Board of process begins again. sion review all over (b) Any request or for re- giving litigant I would add that thus a hearing reconsideration, or or modi- right submit a for such decision, fication of the must rehearing be contrary appear does not to be thirty days from the date of to 35 U.S.C. 7.§ original decision, unless that de- Finally, 197(b) recognizes Rule that a become, cision is so modified as to in controversy could occur as to whether a effect, decision, Board “modified” decision was “new” a deci- so states. provides, it, sion. right as I view that the (second) to file a arises 197(b) considered, If Rule total original where the decision “is so modi- plan by contemplated the Com- become, effect, fied as to in a new deci- apparent, missioner is the fact situation sion.” This is the test which I think developed understood, below is applied 197(b) should be here. Rule phrase clear, board’s may and Rule 304 cludes with the the board correctly be understood. must so state in its “new decision.” It 197(b) broadly Rule worded and is not clear whether the intent Rule contemplates petitions for rehear (b) magic is that certain words such ing. litigant persuade If a can appear “new decision” must wheth- modify “original decision” er if sufficient as a matter of fact becomes, effect, so it “in a new decision” recognized has so modi- states,” and the board “so fied the decision that its second rehearing permitted.4 is, in a new decision. As I view the test is one of substance 197(b) recognizes Rule thus effect not words. The board can no more de- may develop situations wherein nominate a second “decision” as a “new what the terms the decision” or as not a “new decision,” decision” apparently the first board’s the mere recitation or absence such may “modified,” g., become e. magic words. Whether decision is new (first) as the result of must be determined hearing, what the board or on the board’s own motion did. recognizes to correct error. It also litigant right should have the to sub- Ignoring possible inconsistencies be (second) petition mit a (b) tween Rule 197 and Rule it seems provided outside the time limit in Rule they together clear to me that fit they e., days, together.5 subject must be which is not construed n thereonwill readily apparent day period 4. It is an examina- not extend the 60 (b) provided. por- tion of Rule therein the first merely tion of the rule states the 30 day concerning petitions generated by limitation The confusion term readily set “decision” in forth Lest Rules 196 and apparent my approval upon silence be mistaken for examination. find there- portion following however, terminology: of Rule “the sion,” right decision,” decision,” seems that it denies the “its to submit “new “final petitions day decision,” period pro- “decision,” outside the 30 all of which primary vided while the board still rendered either ex- jurisdiction contrary and is therefore aminer or the board. These Rules are provisions preceding procedure to the of Rule 304 which allows to Rule 304. litigant may question that a file a here is which of the “deci- limitation, day permitted outside the 30 sions” the board is to render *9 any proceeding but that such under Rules 196 and is “the 197 decision”
471 304 refers in Rule decision” to me “the glorifies of the two majority titles in Rule referred “new decision” and ignoring substance their rules while “orig- exists, 197(b), to the 197(b) and if none applies meaning'to say Rule that of the board. applies decision” inal board, “it,” Rule and Moreover, me the it seems to “us.” a decision board render Did the plan appreciate the total fails to which, “in petition for first Commis- forth set original effect,” decision so modified are rules all relevant when sioner Rule a “new decision” that together. sidered 197(b) here seem clear ? facts (b) rec- First, Rule 197 render a new it is clear that board did in fact supra, “original discussed, “new ognizes and the board decisions” sion as Assuming such a sit- so the solicitor in stated. Even decisions.” effect concedes, majority appears occurs, is a dis- “decision” which the uation litigant overlook, from? the real issue whether satisfied may ap- litigant effect, only was, provides that a in board’s action Dealing board. of the with the from “the decision” decision. as he does arising in- practicalities decision” me that “the within the Patent seems to “original Office, and “new decisions” me solicitor would cludes both it seems to argue anyone recognizing problem other- Would no in decisions.” have decision, except in Rule decision” “the than that board’s action was new wise controlling appel- decision of in 304 refers to the for the fact all 6 claims controls application “new decision” the board and a lant’s allowed and stand supplants an such over seventh claim has been recommended ignore being seems decision?” The For rea- the board as allowable. petition for stated, apparently on a the fact that an action the solicitor sons not “reasoning” simply in not new the decision is not be- decision; may, support cause did not state some affirming decision which in be a new aof basis a refection specified “the in Rule 304 re- decision” claim. garding timeliness. with The solicitor here is concerned provides Second, 35 U.S.C. § unique problem how to a somewhat follows: deal an from a board deci- * * * give appellant shall notice allowing phrased [of sion’s He has claims. * * * appeal] to the Commis- objection his in motion to dismiss the sioner, file in the Patent Of- ways, e., (1) and shall in the court two * * * appeal, jurisdiction decision) (no fice his reasons lacks adverse admittedly date of the within such time after (2) appellant, fil- while appealed from, than ing decision not less from a days, sixty Commissioner as the provided the board within 30 points. [Emphasis 197(b), 304, added.] Rules and 35 U.S.C. § appealed has not from a new decision It is clear to me that (apparently because it is not an adverse acted in accordance with section decision). only As see the solicitor provided, in Rule advances, objection. substance, one which to file notice of measured majority, sponte, only considers sua date of the decision “the Rule 304 and decides the hoard’s in Rule “The decision” effect from.” “adverse,” hence not an appealed from” in fers to “the decision appealable decision. 6. And it seems section 35 U.S.C. § 142; light pro- say Rule 304 it to tlie Suffice 304? provide and does Rules “decision” in liferation term “original decisions,” aptly coin- applicant so hardly render 196 and 197 tells majority. ined what decision he from unless pari materia is construed in *10 majority appellant jority utilized a error is that shown view rehearing) clearly remedy (second most 1. Therein the footnote majority spite of states that the board’s which is outside Rule action respect “September provided additional U.S.C. and §§ notwithstanding reasons action board’s which it considers the board’s ac- ** * tion constituted a have been “irrelevant.” ‘new deci- changed sion’ to the extent the its board majority has “overlooked believe ** position earlier If the board’s misapprehended” seem factors which decision, appellant action was a new then proper resolu- me to be essential had 60 within which to file a notice presented by the tion solici- of the issue appeal. I conclude that it awas appeal. The dismiss the tor’s motion to thought was, to me result has been what seems was, states the solicitor right appeal. denial of not. Yet the these reasons dissent deny appellant’s petition! sion is to This majority’s disposition of this but leaves alternative dissent. rehearing. approve I cannot but acts both the and the board below. carefully
In its first decision the board
expressed reasoning why precisely its
claims 2 and 5 were not allowable. reasoning Pursuant to the board’s suggestions appellant submitted addi- 53 CCPA Perry BYGDNES, Appellant, Alan arguments tional ain for rehear- ing as to the non-allowed claims and v. toas interpretation the error in the board’s and John H. Alexander R. MAXEY Streets, Appellees. claims 4 and 6. The board then re- Appeal versed and, No. 7639. addition- ally, suggestions assisted of Customs United States Court as to additional new claims. It set forth Appeals. and Patent support the first time its for its in- 5,May terpretation Appel- of claims 4 and 6. attempted lant then to finalize the issues dispute necessary. if obliged because facts of granted case a second
rehearing. orderly procedure This below court, e., defining an assist to this appeal.
the issues for Following reasoning major-
ity, appellant should have with- thirty days in opinion. from the board’s poorly
No matter how the is- majority says below, sues are drawn you
in effect must file a notice of bring them to this court.
Appellant attempted to exhaust his
remedies below as the rec- witnessed majority opinion ord. determines that the 30 which to file opinion ran from the board’s second Apparently
and not the third. the ma-