# In re Bass

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · March 15, 1973 · 474 F.2d 1276

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6824186

## Case

- **Full name:** In re Oscar Bass, Jr., Robert Bain Jenkins, Sr. and Ivan Horvat
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** March 15, 1973
- **Citations:** 474 F.2d 1276; 59 C.C.P.A. 1342; 177 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 178; 1973 CCPA LEXIS 409
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lane
- **Judges:** Almond, Baldwin, Gmef, Lane, Omef, Rich, Rosenstein
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6824186

## Opinion text

Lane, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by both Judge Rich and Judge Baldwin in this case. I affirm the rejection of claims 2,3,4 and 5 as obvious under § 103 in view of Reiterer and Fuji. I reverse the rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 on Bass combined with Fuji and Jenkins. I agree with Judge Rich that there is no substantial evidence of record tending to indicate priority in Bass and I therefore exclude Bass from consideration as prior art here in passing on the obviousness rejection of these claims.
Both Judge Rich and Judge Baldwin have expounded at great length on whether or not § 102(g) makes available as prior art within the meaning of § 103 the prior invention of another who has not abandoned, suppressed or concealed it. In my opinion, the inconsistent conclusions of these judges on this point constitute statements of law which I consider not necessarily involved nor essential to the disposition of this appeal. However, since the particular court which heard this appeal argued is obviously divided on this proposition, as evident from the extensive treatment accorded it in both opinions, I deem it advisable for me to make of record my view that the prior invention of another who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it, under the circumstances of this case which include the disclosure of such invention in an issued patent, is available as “prior art” within the meaning of that term in §103 by virtue of § 102(g).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6824186. Public record. Not legal advice.