Case ID: f_269/html/0679-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ROBB, Associate Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re LEES.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted November 11, 1920.
    Decided December 6, 1920.)
    No. 1340.
    Patents <§=136—Reliance on solicitor does not authorize reissue with broadened claims.
    An affidavit that applicant was unskilled in patent matters and relied on his solicitor, and only recently discovered that the claims were not as broad as the invention, does not show special circumstances excusing the delay, which alone authorized a reissue of the patent with broadened claims more than two years after the original issue.
    <S=eFor other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
    In the matter of the application of Ernest J. Eees for reissue of a patent with broadened claims. Application denied, and applicant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. B. Mueller, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
    T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.
   ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office refusing to reissue appellant’s patent with broadened claims; the application having been filed about two years and five months after the granting of the patent.

In the affidavit accompanying the application for reissue, appellant states that he was unskilled in patent matters, relied upon his solicitor, and only recently discovered that his claims were not as broad as his invention. Since it is settled law that a patent will not be reissued after the lapse of two years, for the purpose of enlarging its claims, unless special circumstances are shown to excuse the delay (Miller v. Brass Co., 104 U. S. 350, 26 L. Ed. 783; Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, 12 Sup. Ct. 825, 36 L. Ed. 658; In re Starkey, 21 App. D. C. 519; In re Schneider, 49 App. D. C. 204, 262 Fed. 718), it cannot be said that there was any abuse of discretion on the part of the Patent Office in ruling that such special circumstances have not been shown here.

It follows that the decision must be affirmed.

Affirmed.