Court Opinion

ID: 9471347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:29:51.588854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:21.895979
License: Public Domain

RICH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority opinion except for that part of the “Fraud” section holding that failure by the applicant, Hagerty, to disclose his knowledge of the Kuhn post to the PTO was not sufficient evidence to support a holding of fraud. If it is true that his attorney was unaware of the Kuhn post, that is irrelevant. The responsibility rested on Hagerty to tell his attorney. It is also irrelevant that Hagerty was not “trained or experienced in the evaluation of what is and is not prior art.” It is incredible to me that Hagerty did not know that the Kuhn post was the closest thing to his invention whether or not he was a legal expert on the refined meanings of “prior art.”