Court Opinion

ID: 9637535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:09:24.240658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:57.369842
License: Public Domain

LENROOT, Associate Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the conclusion reached by the majority and in all of the opinion except the statement that there is nothing in the doctrine announced in the case of In re Tucker, 54 F.(2d) 815, 816, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) -, which prevents a finding by this court upon the question of appellant’s right to make the claim involved herein.
In said case, in which Judge Hatfield and I concurred in the conclusion, the majority opinion states: “We have concluded that, by the quoted provision of section 4914 [35 USCA § 62], Congress meant only to confer upon this court a limited judicial review for the purpose of revising the decision appealed from, and for the correction of such errors only as are made by the patent tribunals appealed from, and which are definitely pointed out and complained of in the reasons of appeal. We feel therefore constrained to hold that even if the Board’s rejection of the claims involved is regarded as proper, when reasons other than those assigned by it are considered, we would not be justified in affirming such action on such grounds.” (Italics mine.)
In the ease at bar, the right of appellant to make the claim is not “complained of in the reasons of, appeal,” nor could it be, because appellant could not complain of a decision in his favor.
I therefore conclude that the majority opinion herein does clearly modify the rule declared in said In re Tucker, supra, and such modification meets with my approval.