Opinion

Application of Klaus Heinz Risse, Ulrich Horlein and Wolfgang Wirth. Application of Ulrich Horlein, Wolfgang Wirth and Klaus Heinz Risse

  • 378 F.2d 948
  • 54 C.C.P.A. 1495
  • 154 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1
  • 1967 CCPA LEXIS 292
Court
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Filed
Jun 15, 1967
Status
Published
Author
Smith
On the bench
Worley, Rich, Martin, Smith, Almond
Cited by
29 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.8%

Overruled in part, on other grounds by In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389 (1972)

Later courts went against this

  • Overruled in part, on other grounds by In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389 (1972)

    378 F.2d 948, 955-56, 54 CCPA 1495, 154 USPQ 1, 7 (1967), overruled in part on other grounds by In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 59 CCPA 1025, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (1972).
    Court of Customs and Patent AppealsMay 18, 1972other groundsin partmedium confidenceRead it

The opinion

SMITH, Judge

(concurring).

The record shows that the Board of Appeals here consisted of an examiner-in-chief and two acting examiners-in-chief. Appellants do not challenge the legality of that board. For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927 , 54 CCPA 957, the decision of such a board in my view is a legal nullity. However, I must accept the majority’s view on this issue in the Wiechert case, i. e., the legality of the board is not an issue here. I therefore participate in the merits of this appeal and in so doing, agree with the conclusion of the majority.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.