The opinion
O’CONNELL, Judge
(dissenting in part).
The rule in Langsner, supra, is not pertinent here because in that case the situation was based upon a subsequent change in essential facts and not a subsequent change in law effected by a change in the rules of practice in the Patent Office. When, as here, the new rule is not inconsistent with the statutes, it has force and operation of law. In re Terres et al., 150 F.2d 711 , 32 C.C.P.A., Patents, 965.
By a short cut to justice, the court should relieve appellants of the necessity of resorting to all the technical apparatus of procedure, with which litigants are familiar, in order to correct a situation which the court ¡has learned from its own records that the foundation of the decision of the Board of Appeals has been reversed. Reed v. Allen, 286 U.S. 191, 207 , 52 S.Ct. 532 , 76 L.Ed. 1054 .