# Application of John Edward James

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · October 22, 1970 · 432 F.2d 473

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9456095

## Case

- **Full name:** Application of John Edward JAMES
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** October 22, 1970
- **Citations:** 432 F.2d 473; 57 C.C.P.A. 1371
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lane
- **Judges:** Rich, Almond, Baldwin, Lane, Ford
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9456095

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9456095. Public record. Not legal advice.