concurring opinion of Judge Lane
How later courts described this case
- concurring opinion of Judge Lane
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LANE, Judge
(concurring).
I agree with the result reached by the majority in finding that the board in this case was acting under the Commissioner’s authority rather than its own, and hence, under Sundback, was not rendering a “decision” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 141 . The fact that a given Patent Office determination is not a decision under section 141 does not mean that such determination is not reviewable in this court. Such determinations are reviewable here if they are logically related to a decision under section 141, either on patentability (see In re Searles, 422 F.2d 431 , 57 CCPA 912 (1970)), or on priority (see the second decision in Vandenberg v. Reynolds, 268 F.2d 744 , 46 CCPA 938 (1959)). In the present case the board made no determination on patentability and thus did not open the no-reply-brief question to our review.