Court Opinion

ID: 9445613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:34:23.280971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:20.860041
License: Public Domain

WORLEY, Judge
(concurring).
In my opinion appellant was claiming substantially the same subject matter as that of appealed claim 1 prior to the issuance of the Weinrich patent and, accordingly, was not precluded by the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 135 from asserting that claim. I am further of the opinion that appealed claim 4 must be regarded as dependent on claim 2 of appellant’s application rather than on claim 2 of the Weinrich patent and that, as so regarded, it finds proper support in the disclosure of that application. I agree, therefore, that the decision of the board should be reversed.