Court Opinion

ID: 9448272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:29:36.982048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:21.436986
License: Public Domain

RICH, Judge
(dissenting).
With due respect for the decision of the majority to affirm, my view of this case, and the basic reasons for my strong belief that we should reverse, can be stated in outline form as follows:
The question: Can a common assignee’s wrong choice between two applications, one by the inventor and the other by one who attempted to misappro*940priate the invention,, be changed within three and a half months of making?
The law: There is no statutory law or Patent Office rule on the point. The case law holds that the choice cannot be changed if the result will be: (a) two outstanding patents for one invention or (b) an extension of monopoly in point of time.
This case: Here we have neither (a) nor (b) which makes this an interesting and important case of first impression. The court is not bound by statute, rule, or precedent to decide either for or against Hession, the true inventor who is the appellant here.
The rejection: The sole ground of rejection urged by the examiner and affirmed by the Board of Appeals was “double patenting.” There will be no double patenting in any form if Hession’s patent is granted. In all of the cases relied on by the Patent Office or in the majority opinion1 there would have been, which is why this is a case of first impression.
Policy: Being unfettered ■ by precedent, the court, by this decision, is making law, not merely applying it. Any new law this court' makes in deciding cases of first impression should be in the interests of doing justice to the injured, of preserving rather than destroying legal rights, of correcting rather than perpetuating error, and of rectifying wrongdoing.
Hession: The appellant has complied with all of the statutory requirements to obtain a patent on an invention of admitted patentability. He has committed no fraud or other wrongful act. He is the admitted only (not first) inventor, his assignee has admitted wronging him and has done all within its power to rectify that wrong, effectively removing, so far as I can see, every legal barrier to the grant of Hession’s patent for which it was responsible. Hession, additionally, in pursuit of his tattered, tom and hereby extinguished rights, has offered further sacrifice in the form of terminal disclaimer, as permitted by statute (35 U.S.C. § 253), to avoid the only remaining legal obstacle to patenting.
Contrary to the majority view that “we cannot properly concern ourselves with the fortunes or misfortunes of Hession who had assigned all his right, title and interest in the invention,” I think we are very much concerned with the misfortunes of Hession, who is the appellant, and the sole appellant, in this court. If we are not concerned with his rights, with what are we concerned?
Since an understanding of my view as to the correct decision (reversal) in this case depends on an understanding of the facts, which are only summarized in the majority opinion, I repeat here my statement thereof substantially as contained in an opinion, prepared shortly after the hearing, which has failed to retain the support of a majority of the court.
The Facts
Hession’s application stands rejected for “double patenting” 2 in view of a single reference, Frank A. Ziherl’s patent No. 2,705,171.
Hession’s invention is entitled “Aerosol Apparatus” in his appealed application and “Fog Spray Applicator” in Ziherl’s patent. In view of the issues here it is unnecessary to know anything about its details but, by way of background, it is a small electrically powered sprayer for liquids such as insecticides, deodorants, and the like in which a motor-driven blower drives air through one *941or more venturis to the throats of which liquid is delivered and from which it emerges as a spray or mist in whirling air streams. It is a portable device which may have its own liquid container; or it may be adapted, by use of a suitable dip pipe, to be mounted on top of a drum containing the liquid to be sprayed.
The essential facts, as shown by the record, are hereinafter given in chronological order. They relate primarily to the interrelationships between the inventor, Hession, the reference patentee, Frank A. Ziherl, Z & W Machine Products, Inc. (herein called “Z & W”), of which company Ziherl was an officer, and the attorneys for Z & W who, as will appear, prosecuted Ilession’s application during a certain period. Z & W is an Ohio corporation and was, during part of the period involved, located in Cleveland, as were its attorneys, moving later to Wickliffe, Ohio, a Cleveland suburb.
The sequence of relevant events began in 1951. As of August 10, 1951, Hession entered into a written agreement with Z & W which recited that he was an engineer skilled in the art of atomizing devices, that he had produced at his own expense prototype models of a venturi type of aerosol sprayer upon which patent applications were being prepared and that he had other types of apparatus in contemplation for producing equivalent results. At that time Hession was living in Darien, Connecticut, which is near New York City. Z & W was in Cleveland and the gist of the agreement was that it was to manufacture sprayers designed and developed by Hession who was to render consulting engineering services for a year at a weekly stipend of $200, receiving reimbursement of his expenses for travel, maintenance, and authorized prototype construction, and a “fee of 5% of the net sales price of such unit or units.” His salary was to be applied against any first year royalty. The agreement was rather loosely drawn, but apparently the salary was to be paid for one year. Another provision was that the parties mutually agreed “that an exclusive license shall be executed by Hession to Z & W for the manufacture, distribution and sale of any or all of these methods,” 3 which obviously was intended to mean spraying units. The license and royalty of 5% were apparently to run three years, with escape clauses. This agreement was signed on behalf of Z & W by “Frank Ziherl.” It was signed by Hession on “15 Aug. ’51,” which was five days after its effective date.
An affidavit by Hession, dated March 29, 1956, on file in his application states:
“Prior to January, 1952, I made and successfully tested the aerosol device, shown, described and claimed in the above mentioned application and fully disclosed the same to Frank A. Ziherl. I thereupon proceeded to engineer a production. model of the aerosol device for Z and W Machine Products, Inc.
“By March 15, 1952, I had completely engineered an aerosol device acceptable to Z and W Machine Products, Inc. and this device had been constructed by Z and W Machine Products, Inc., under my direction. This device is shown, described and claimed in my above entitled applica- . tion.”
The next event of record in point of time — an event of which Hession, I am convinced, had no knowledge until two and a half years later — was that on August 18, 1952, Frank A. Ziherl executed an assignment of a patent application to Z & W, which application was filed in the Patent Office within a few days on August 26, 1952, Ser. No. 306,331. That application was prepared and filed by a firm of patent lawyers in Washington, D. C. It matured into the Ziherl patent No. 2,705,171 on which Hession’s application stands rejected. From some undisclosed date until January 4, 1955, its prosecution appears to have been carried on by a firm of Cleveland attorneys who, on the latter date, turned it over to the *942attorneys for Z & W, a different Cleveland firm, as will appear.
Returning to Hession, on September 25, 1952, in Darien, Conn., he executed a patent application which had been prepared for him by a firm of New York patent lawyers who filed it in the Patent Office on October 3, 1952. This is the application at bar.
I here interrupt the chronological narrative to remark that it is obvious that the Ziherl application, prepared in Washington, and the Hession application, prepared in New York, were independently written on the basis of a common source of information such as a prototype device or drawings. The resemblances are such that they could result only from use of a common source and the differences are those which would be expected to result from independent preparation of patent applications on the basis of the same disclosure. The two applications describe the same device even to the inclusion of patentably unimportant details of construction.
Hession, on October 8, 1952, in New York, executed a second agreement with Z & W which took the place of the first agreement. Hession’s affidavit indicates that there had been some disagreement between the parties about paying royalties under the 1951 agreement on aerosol devices in production by Z & W after the first year during which he received weekly compensation. Be that as it may, the first agreement was wiped out, releases exchanged, and Hession agreed to assign, and by separate instrument did assign to Z & W, his entire interest in the application at bar and the invention described therein. The corporation agreed to pay him $5,000 in three installments over a two year period, to take over the prosecution of his application, and in addition to pay him 1% of its net sales “on all sprayer or fog mist applicators embodying the invention of said patent applications sold within a period of three years from the date of execution of this agreement.” The only patent application mentioned in this agreement, signed several weeks after Ziherl filed, is the single Hession application filed October 3, 1952, including, however, “all divisions, reissues, continuations and extensions” thereof and applications covering improvements thereof, which explains why “applications” in the plural were referred to. As a result of the signing of the new agreement and the separate assignment to be recorded in the Patent Office (which was recorded Oct. 10, 1952), a power of attorney in Hession’s then pending application (the one at bar) was given, either by him or by Z & W, to the Cleveland attorneys for Z & W, Isler and Ornstein, who were not yet in charge of the Ziherl application. That power of attorney was accepted by the Patent Office Nov. 28, 1952.
Paragraph 2 of the October 8, 1952 agreement provided, inter alia:
“Hession agrees to cooperate with and assist patent counsel for Z & W in the further prosecution of said pending patent application and any and all applications covering improvements thereon.”
At this point silence reigns in the abbreviated record in this court with respect to a two year period during which prosecution of the Hession and Ziherl applications by two separate firms of attorneys was presumably proceeding at a normal rate. This period ended on New Year’s eve, December 31, 1954, when the Patent Office mailed an action in the Hession application to Isler and Ornstein withdrawing the allowance of some allowed claims and rejecting all pending claims on the copending Ziherl application, filed 38 days ahead of Hession’s, saying that the claims conflicted with Ziherl’s claims, that the two applications had a common assignee and that the subject matter “must be placed in one application in the absence of good and sufficient reasons why this may not be done,” citing Rule 78(b) and Sections 305 and 1101.01(b) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.
By January 4, 1955, notwithstanding mailing time and the intervening holiday, Isler and Ornstein had obtained a power of attorney in the Ziherl application, *943which' transferred its prosecution to them from the other Cleveland firm. On March 1, 1955, they filed an amendment in the Hession application cancelling a number of claims with respect to which they stated in the “Remarks”:
“Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 have been cancelled in view of the fact that these claims are not patentably .distinguishable over the allowed claims in Ziherl application, Serial No. 306,331, which is owned by the assignee of the present application.”
It was the filing of this amendment which constituted the “election” by which, the Patent Office insists, Hession is irrevocably bound. This is the wrong choice sought to be corrected.
Subsequent to this amendment in the Hession application, Ziherl patent No. 2,705,171, now the “double patenting” reference, issued on March 29, 1955.
Before the Patent Office took any further action on the Hession application, which was still pending with other claims, the Z & W attorneys filed another amendment on June 15, 1955, stated to be “In further response to the Office action of December 31,1954 and supplementing the amendment of February 28, 1955,” (the ■one filed March 1, 1955) within three and .a half months of the wrong choice, attempting to undo what had been done by the latter amendment. The cancelled claims were restored. The Z & W attorney filed “Remarks” containing a lengthy “explanation” which recited some of the foregoing facts and made, inter alia, the following statements:
“6. Upon receipt of the Office action of December 31, 1954, in the Hession application, the writer of this supplemental amendment, William Isler, was confronted with the problem of electing to place allowed claims common to the Hession and Ziherl applications in one of the two applications, since there was a common assignee of the two applications.
“7. In an effort to arrive at a proper election, the writer of this amendment contacted both Ziherl and Hession. In support of Ziherl’s position as the possible first inventor, was the fact that his application was filed approximately five (5) weeks before the filing date of the Hession application, and the further fact that among the drawings which Ziherl had available, there were several drawings dated March 20, 1952, showing the combination which is the subject of the claims in the Ziherl patent. In support of Hession’s position as a possible first inventor, was his uncorroborated statement that he had numerous sketches and an actual model of the invention which were prior to March 20, 1952, but which, after diligent search and investigation, he was unable to find or produce.
“8. On the basis of the foregoing evidence, an election was made to place the common claims in the Ziherl application, and the patent was accordingly issued as patent'No. 2,705,171.
“9. Approximately six weeks after the issuance of the Ziherl patent, the assignee was notified by .Hession that he (Hession) had, upon extending his search and investigation, found the sketches and models referred to in (7) above.
“10. An examination by the writer and others of Hession’s evidence clearly establishes Hession as the first inventor, and is the basis for assignee’s desire to now'rectify the situation by obtaining a patent containing the common claims in Hession’s name, in the manner proposed by this supplemental amendment.
“11. In the event that this amendment is entered, the proposed claims allowed, and a patent issued to Hession, assignee will agree to disclaim the Ziherl patent in its entirety, and also will agree, in order to avoid objection to this proposed procedure on the ground that an extension of monopoly will result if a patent is now issued to Hession, to disclaim that *944terminal portion of the patent issued to Hession which is equivalent, to the period between issuance of the Ziherl patent and issuance of a patent to Hession.” [All emphasis mine.]
Of course, the attorney who made the “election” 4 knew only what he was told and, in the light of subsequent events and somewhat conflicting evidence, his “Remarks” would appear to be something of an understatement of some events that must have occurred to produce the extraordinary actions of record. Hession has stated by affidavit: ■
“Prior to April 1955, I had no knowledge of Ziherl patent No. 2,-705,171, issued on March 29, 1955, or of any application therefor or that any question of priority of inventor-ship existed as to the subject matter of my patent application. I therefore made no attempt, and had no reason, to produce proofs of inventorship.” [Emphasis mine.]
The circumstances of this case strongly support that statement, the conduct of all parties being consistent only with lack of knowledge on Hession’s part of Ziherl’s application. Hession stated further in his affidavit: .
“Prior to March, 1955, I had been approached by Arthur F. Alders, who was in the business of selling aerosol apparatus [made by Z & W], tó máke further developments on the aerosol apparatus for Z and W Machine Products, Inc. Upon learning of. the issuance of the Ziherl patent, I informed Alders that I would have nothing further to do with Z and W Machine Products, Inc. and I advised Lewis Ziherl and G. W. Walker of Z and W Machine Products, Inc. that I considered unconscionable the fraudulent conduct of Prank A. Ziherl in surreptitiously filing a patent application on the aerosol device that I invented and developed. I was assured that Z and W Machine Products, Inc. would take the necessary steps to remedy the inadvertent issuance of th® Zíherl patent aad to ob' taf a patent °“ ^cation." [Emphasis mine.]
Documentary support for the above statement of Hession is in the record in the form of two written agreements, one between Hession and Alders, dated August 27, 1955, and a companion agreement between Hession and Z & W dated September 1, 1955. Each agreement con^ains a clause reading:
“WHEREAS, a dispute has arisen between Z & W and Hession, arising out of the issUance to Prank A. Ziher!, as assignor, and to Z & W, as assignee, on March 29,1955, of United States Letters Patent No. 2,705,-171, as a result of which Hession is unwilling to enter into any new agreement with Z & W to improve the line of .Specialty Products; [the contract term used to denote Hession-designed . aerosol apparatus *945manufactured by Z & W for Arthur F. Alders].”
The body of the new Z & W agreement, signed by G. W. Walker as President “in settlement of said dispute,” terminated the October 8, 1952, agreement and provided (a) for the diligent prosecution by Z & W of the Hession application, including exhausting all rights of appeal (which is where we are now) by attorneys acceptable to Hession, (b) for the disclaimer of the Ziherl patent, and (c) reassignment of all rights to Hession’s invention and application to him. Z & W did, or caused to be done, all of the things agreed to.
This is not the conduct to be expected of either a corporate entity or the officers thereof who knew at all times just what the facts were and just what they were electing (if it can be said realistically that it was the corporation rather than Mr. Isler who “elected”) so as to be incapable of making any “mistake,” which is a basic premise of the majority’s conclusion. If such fictions are indulged in, they should, at least be plausible fictions.
Hession later revoked the power of attorney given to the attorneys for Z & W, giving one instead to the attorneys who are prosecuting the instant appeal, explaining this action in his affidavit of March 29, 1956, by saying:
“Recent circumstances have shown me that my interests would best be served by having my own attorneys continue the prosecution of my application.”
The attempt made by the Z & W attorneys, before this happened, to “rectify the situation” met, on August 16, 1955, with final rejection by the examiner. His position was simply a repetition of the “double patenting” rejection. As to the proffered disclaimers, he said merely that they “would not avoid the rejection,” citing this court’s decision in In re Siu, 222 F.2d 267, 42 CCPA 864, 105 USPQ 428, as the only authority for so holding. It is shown later that the case is not in point.
The Z & W attorneys thereupon appealed to the Board of Appeals on February 9, 1956.
Hession’s new attorneys thereafter took over and on April 9, 1956, filed their brief before the board and the following additional papers: (1) Hession’s affi-
davit of March 29, 1956, giving his version of the facts, from which I have already quoted; (2) an affidavit executed April 3, 1956, by Frank A. Ziherl in which he said:
“I acknowledge that I am not the inventor of the subject matter set forth in the claims of patent No. 2,705,171.” [Emphasis mine.]
(3) An offer to disclaim signed by Hession March 30,1956, saying:
“I, John W. Hession, Jr., applicant in the above named application do hereby offer to disclaim the portion of the term of any patent issuing on the above named application which extends beyond March 29, 1972.” [Emphasis mine.]
(4) An actual disclaimer by Z & W as owner of the Ziherl patent, signed by G. W. Walker, President, on April 3, 1956, saying in part:
* * * that it has knowledge that Frank A. Ziherl, the patentee therein, is not the first inventor of the subject matter of the claims of this patent and acknowledges that John W. Hession, Jr. is the first inventor thereof and therefore the claims of said letters patent are invalid. Your petitioner, therefore, hereby disclaims all of the claims of said patent. [Emphasis mine.]
The offer of terminal disclaimer by Hession, when accepted, would cut back the term of any patent he may be granted to the statutory expiration date of the Ziherl reference patent and the disclaimer of all claims of the latter by Z & W effectively put an end to the Ziherl patent and to any prima facie monopoly secured thereby. As of now there is no patent on Hession’s invention. The disclaimer in the Ziherl patent, we note, was published in the Official Gazette of May 8, *9461'956; and is printed on the copy of that patent in the record here. Since the disclaimer by Z & W is part of the official record, anyone examining it would be put on notice that another patent might be granted to Hession, the true inventor, as it should be.
So much for the facts which, I should like to note in passing, make quite a “showing of good cause,” if one be needed, for permitting the common assignee here to reverse its theoretical “election.” In this connection I point out that one Frank A. Ziherl, individually, and not acting for or on behalf of the assignee corporation, was the one with the guilty knowledge, who committed the fraud if there was any, and who attempted, as an individual, to pose as the inventor of Hession’s invention. The majority impute his knowledge 'to the corporation to show that it knew all and so could not make a “mistake” but from the above it will be seen that as soon as Hession found out about the Ziherl patent he communicated facts to the corporation, its attorney and officers, and that as soon as they really knew those facts they took immediate remedial action to undo something that they never would have done had they known them at the time when the wrong choice was made. To the majority who say “it would be hard to find a case presenting less cause for the relief requested than the case at bar,” I say “Seek and ye shall find.” The majority seems to have been influenced by the idea that Z & W “accepted” an assignment of Ziherl’s application. There is, however, nothing of record to show they ever heard of it. They did not sign it. It was the usual form of unilateral assignment.
It appears to me that the attorney, Isler, acting on behalf of Hession but in the employ of Z & W, the common assignee, and making reasonable enquiry as to the facts he needed within the practical limits of the attorney-client relationship, acted reasonably, though perhaps he should have been more suspicious. In practical affairs the attorney for a small corporation does not have the F.B.I. at his disposal, the scope of his investigations are limited by what his client is willing to pay for, and in this case it seems more than likely that he was genuinely misled in his investigations if his contacts with his client were through the individual Frank A. Ziherl who, for personal, not corporate, reasons was probably prejudiced in favor of his own application. In any event, the facts show that whatever action Frank A. Ziherl may have induced was promptly reversed by the other and higher officers when they actually came into possession of the facts the majority imputes to them.
The “Majority” Opinion
So much for the facts. What of the law on which the majority opinion relies ? The “doctrine of election,” on which it rests its decision, is to be found, so far as appellate courts are concerned, in a tidy little group of cases. My analysis of them, and of their applicability here, mostly as I wrote it before having the benefit of the light shed by the majority opinion, follows. I still stand on it in preference to the majority’s eclectic.rationalization. At this point I will mention a few reasons for this preference, which I have not already touched on.
The highly abbreviated selection and summarization of facts as set forth in the majority opinion, I respectfully submit, fails to show what actually happened and has a tendency to lead the reader’s mind only toward the decision reached, which is not at all a necessary decision under existing law, as the majority opinion appears to assume.
I find no recognition that the facts of this case make it one of first impression which, as such, is not controlled by prior cases. So far as I have been able to discover, this is the first so-called “election” case in which the applicant has disposed of both of the classic reasons for holding elections to be binding, namely, two outstanding patents on one invention and extension of monopoly.
I do not find the majority’s emphasis on the fact that Hession got paid by Z & *947W under his contracts at all persuasive on the issue here. There is one thing he did not sell, because he could not under the law-, namely, the right to have his invention patented in the name of someone else and his reputation as an inventor. The Constitution and the patent statutes have as their aim the protection of inventors and, while their rights are saleable, they are the applicants and all proceedings are carried on in their names. Hession and his rights are before this court, not Z & W Machine Products, Inc., and its rights.
Neither do I think cases involving issues as to which of two bona fide inventors is “first” in the sense of the patent law have a bearing on this case in which there is admittedly only one inventor, Hession.
The law, as to which the majority has no doubt, is set forth in its opinion as beginning with the “basic principles” of the law of election of remedies as set forth in Corpus Juris Secundum. For one thing, this is not an election of remedies case and I see no resemblance between that rule of procedure and the right to obtain a patent. For another, there is more in C.J.S. than the passage quoted by the maj'ority, including:
“The binding force of an election cannot be predicated upon mere imputed knowledge.” 28 C.J.S. Election of Remedies § 23, p. 1098.
“It has been said that the doctrine [of election of remedies] is a harsh rule which is not to be extended, and that it is to be applied by the courts with a wide discretion in order that it may not be made an instrument of oppression. Each case involving a question of election of remedies must be governed by its facts.” 28 C.J.S. Election of Remedies § 1, pp. 1058, 1059.
It would be repetitious to discuss what the majority says about the real patent law “doctrine of election” since the cases are fully covered in my own ensuing analysis, which is on the basis of the issues in the cases and what the courts did with them, rather than ,on. obiter uttered in rationalizing them.
A quarter of the majority opinion is devoted to an attempt to show that the common assignee did not make a “mistake.” A mistake is sought to be subtly distinguished from an error. The argument is that an assignee making a wrong choice between two applications “deliberately and knowingly” should not be allowed to correct it “merely because subsequent developments make such a course appear expedient.” If there is anything in this case which could be classified under the head of mere expediency, it has not appeared to me. I can only refer to the above statement of facts for refutation of that notion. Of course Mr. Isler, the attorney who actually made the election, made it deliberately. As to making it knowingly, one has but to look at what happened to appreciate that he did not know the facts about inventorship when he elected the Ziherl application because as soon as he found out what they were it came to him as a shock (he had gotten his client an invalid patent) that a fatal mistake had been made and he set about vigorously attempting to correct it. It is a tour de force to avoid this fact by the circuitous route of the imputed-knowledge and no-mistake theories of the majority opinion.
In a brief discussion of the fraud question, on which the appellant unfortunately, I think, largely based his case here, the majority appears to find an element of fraud, if there be any fraud, in the attempt of Z & W to come to this court to void its wrong election. If there be any fraud in this case, it was in the attempt — whoever was responsible for it— to patent Hession’s invention in Ziherl’s name. It does not appear to me that the corporation, Z & W, had anything to do with that. But certainly I can find no element of fraud in its efforts to rectify that wrong.
The Law
Except for a new ground of rejection raised for the first time by the board, which I pass for the moment, the simple *948question presented by the above rather unusual facts is whether the law permits correction of the admitted error committed in obtaining in the name of Ziherl an invalid patent on Hession’s invention.
My analysis of the two board opinions (the second on petition for rehearing, which was denied) and the brief for the Patent Office leads me to the conclusion that the sole basis of the refusal to permit rectification of the error by the means proposed is the “doctrine of election.” The only authority ultimately relied on in support of the said doctrine as the Patent Office interprets it is this court’s decision in In re Fischel et al., 136 F.2d 254, 258, 30 CCPA 1085, 58 USPQ 80. I have carefully studied the opinion in that case and I have reread the record and briefs therein as well as all the cases there cited and relied on by the Patent Office dealing with election. As a result I have reached the conclusion that the Patent Office in the present ease has failed to give any weight to an important factual distinction which exists between this case and the Fischel case and also, it seems to me, rested its case almost entirely on a passage in the Fischel opinion given by it as one of three “fundamental propositions” supporting the “doctrine of election.” I shall show why that proposition is no support for the doctrine but merely a reiteration of the doctrine itself.
The facts in the Fischel case were that a common assignee had taken out a patent on an application by Fischel and Thiry and was attempting to obtain a patent on the same invention on an application by Fischel and Rieper. The common subject matter had been claimed in claims 7 and 8 of the issued patent and, when met with a “double patenting” rejection, the assignee had reissued the patent to delete those claims. This eliminated the possibility that there would be i-n existence two patents on the same invention. The claims were still refused, however, on the ground that a second patent would extend the monopoly. As the Examiner’s Statement put it:
“To allow the claims in the present application, would be to grant to the assignee of the patent and the application, patent rights to a single invention for a longer period that the seventeen years allowed by statute.” [My emphasis.].
Appellant then argued that there would be no extension of monopoly because claims 7 and 8, removed by reissue, had been invalid ab initio by reason of statutory bars so that there had never been a monopoly. The board refused to accept this argument and said that, until defeated, there had been a prima facie monopoly, continuing (136 F.2d at 256, 30 CCPA at 1087):
“Under the circumstances, it seems to us that the doctrine of the case of In re Dunbar (51 App.D.C. 251), 278 F. 334 applies- Cases of similar import are In re Mann et al., 47 F.2d 370 (18 C.C.P.A.,1020), and Haight v. Nell, 1927 C.D. 4.”
This court affirmed the rejection, which had been affirmed by the board. In doing so this court said that its holding that the assignee was bound by the election made in taking out the Fischel and Thiry patent was supported by the authorities citecl by the board and others which would be considered. This court’s opinion then proceeded with a consideration of the three cases mentioned by the board and said (136 F.2d at 257, 258, 30 CCPA at 1089-1092) :
“It will be noticed that all three of the above cases were based upon the doctrine of election and that said doctrine in those eases was said to involve the question of extension of the monopoly. [Emphasis in original.]
■**#**•»
“Appellants’ contention with regard to claims 7 and 8 being void ab initio makes it necessary for us to consider whether or not there would be an extension of the monop*949oly, under the facts disclosed by the instant record, by allowance of the appealed claims.
* * *
<(T , j-In concluding that appellants are bound by their assignee’s election to take out the broad claims 7 and 8 in the Fischel and Thiry patent under the circumstances stated and are now barred from claiming in the instant application the same * * * subject-matter * * *, we are influenced by a consideration of the fact that * * * to allow the instant claims would be to extend the monopoly which the assignee has enjoyed in the subject-matter embraced in said claims 7 and 8 in the Fischel and Thiry patent, regardless of the said admitted invalidity. [My emphasis.]
,, „ # #
“We * * * conclude * * * , . „ , , . . that to allow the instant claims would be an extension of monopoly.” [ y emp asís.]
It is thus clear beyond question that extension of monopoly was a ground, probably the principal ground, of the Fischel decision
At the same time there seems to have been a second ground which is not so clear. In tlm course of its opinion the court had said (136 F.2d at 258, 30 CCPA at 1090, 1091):
“We think the true doctrine of election in patent cases is grounded upon one or more of three fundamental propositions. First, the application of the doctrine prevents two patents being issued for the same invention. Second, it prevents an avoidance of the determination of priority. Third, it prevents an extension of the monopoly.
******
“We think the second ground— avoidance of the determination of priority — is applicable in the instant case in determining the correctness of applying the doctrine of election. Appellants’ assignee, by taking out the broad claims to the invention in the patent, conceded priority of invention therein disclosed to Fischel and Thiry. Having made such con-it cannot now have a valid , Pat«nt containing the same subject-matter in another application,
* * * * * *
“In concluding that appellants are bound by their assignee’s election * * * we are influenced by a consideration of the fact that the assignee’s conduct conceded priority of invention to Fischel and Thiry.” [Emphasis mine.]
In bringing its opinion to a close the court said> joining both grounds (136 F.2d at 259, 30 CCPA at 1092):
. _ In ^e instant case our conclusloa 18 that tke Proper basis for the application of the doctrine of electÍOn by the C°mm°n assi®nee of two applications, to wit: extension of monopoly and concession of priority, appears from the instant facts and requires the application of the doctrine.” [Emphasis mine.]
, 1 sh°uld now lka to re™ the FT cases from which the court derived the “doctrine of election.” In the Fischel case, as here, the actual rejection had been on the ground of “double patenting” which had then been interpreted, in this case by the board and in the Fischel case by the Patent Office Solicitor, to mean that the applicant was barred by the “doctrine of election.” In the Fischel case the solicitor told the court in his brief that the only cases which had been found which were in point were “In re Dunbar, 51 App.D.C. 251, 278 F. 334, and the decisions of this Court in In re Mann and Koppelman, 47 F.2d 370, 18 C.C.P.A. 1020 [8 USPQ 381] and in In re Willoughby, 88 F.2d 482, 24 C.C.P.A. 1033 [33 USPQ 46].” This is the same line of authority, plus Fischel, relied on the board here.
In the Dunbar case the assignee owned two applications, one of which went to issue with narrow claims. The appeal was on the other application, which had *950an earlier filing date, having broad claims to the same invention. The Commissioner of Patents held that there had been an election in issuing the patent and that ■to grant another would extend the monopoly. . The Court of Appeals agreed. The case was decided in 1922.
Perhaps the earliest case in this court to discuss In re Dunbar is Gowen v. Hendry, 37 F.2d 426, 17 CCPA 789, 4 USPQ 161, in the first year of this court’s jurisdiction over Patent Office appeals. The court there said (37 F.2d at 428, 17 CCPA at 793):
“The principles announced in the decision in the case of In re Dunbar, supra, were intended to prevent so-called ‘double patenting,’ and to prevent the extension of the statutory period of patent monopoly.” [My emphasis.]
In the Mann et al. case a Koppelman and Cooper patent, owned and obtained by the appellants Mann and Koppelman, was cited against them as a reference and it was argued it was not a proper reference. The patent and application covered the same invention. The court said that because of common ownership there could be no interference and taking out the patent “was in legal effect a concession of priority,” and that appellant could “not now make any claims upon the application before us that could have been made upon the Koppelman and Cooper disclosure.” The court based this holding on In re Dunbar from which it quoted passages referring to election and indicating that it was binding because of extension of monopoly.
In In re Willoughby the court had before it the board’s affirmance of a rejection by the examiner on the ground that allowance “would obviously result in double patenting and an extention of the monopoly which the assignee of the present case already enjoys.” [Emphasis mine.] [88 F.2d 483.] The court said that the question posed was whether an assignee, having elected to take out a patent, was entitled to another one. It affirmed the rejection on authority of the Dunbar and Mann et al. cases. The court said it was incumbent upon appellant to clearly point out what patentable matter, if any, was contained in the appealed claims not covered by the patent claims and said that “this he has not done to our satisfaction.”
In both the Mann et al. and Willoughby cases this court recognized that the “doctrine of election” was not a rule of universal application and that there are various exceptions to it. I have taken note of a case neither party has cited, In re Howard, 53 F.2d 896, 19 CCPA 759, 11 USPQ 280, discussed in the Willoughby case, wherein this court refused to apply the doctrine applied in Dunbar and Mann et al. notwithstanding there would be an extension of monopoly, saying its conclusion was “based upon the particular facts in the case at bar.” The common assignee which had already obtained a patent was permitted a second patent. The following excerpts are significant (53 F.2d at 899, 19 CCPA at 765):
“There is nothing in the record to indicate that appellant’s assignee elected to prosécute the claims here in issue through the Howard application for the purpose of prolonging its monopoly * * *.
******
“We are loath to hold that a party should be denied a patent solely because its grant would extend a monopoly theretofore secured by him, if such extension was due solely to an erroneous decision of the tribunals of the Patent Office, rejecting the claims originally.
“We would observe that we have made diligent search for authorities upon the precise questions here involved, but have found none, and the particular state of facts which gives rise to the controversy here seems never to have arisen before in the Patent Office or in the courts.”
The same might be said of the present case, which is one of first impression.
*951One outstanding material fact stands •out to distinguish this case from all of those relied on below to support the thesis that a common assignee’s election to take a patent on one application is so binding that he can never have a patent •on another application for the same invention. That fact is the offer of terminal disclaimer by Hession which disposes entirely of the issue of extension ■of monopoly. The solicitor for the Patent Office tacitly admits that this ground for applying the “doctrine” does not •exist by failing to rely on it. Similarly it is tacitly admitted that there will not be two patents on one invention if the .appealed application is allowed.
The only point in the Fischel case left for the solicitor to rely on, and the only one he does rely on, is the above quoted second ground underlying the “doctrine •of election.” Based thereon a sort of public interest argument is made. I quote his brief:
“One of those propositions is that the duty of a common assignee to elect “prevents an avoidance of the determination of priority.” Once a patent has issued, the public is entitled to assume that the election to take out that patent is final. If an error was made in the election, the public is likewise entitled to assume that the assignee must bear the consequences and no further patent will issue. In effect, such was the holding in In re Fischel et al.” [My emphasis.]
I cannot agree with that construction of the Fischel case, in which extension •of monopoly would have resulted from .allowance.
I will now consider the only portion of the Fischel et al. case opinion which the Patent Office could, or did, rely on; that is the notion expressed as the second of the three “fundamental propositions” ■which support the “doctrine of election,” namely, that “it prevents an avoidance ■of the determination of priority.” I •entirely agree with the majority’s interpretation of that phrase.
First, what is this “doctrine of election” the majority is applying? It is, simply, a rule of law that a decision to take' out a patent on one of two applications claiming the same invention, no matter how erroneuos or how the error arose, is binding and cannot be changed. Or one may say, the “doctrine” is: elections are binding.
Next, what of the proposition which is supposed to support it? This proposition is that (a) the election amounts to a “determination of priority,” which, of course, is pure legal fiction; and (b) that “avoidance,” i. e., nullification or changing, of that determination is prevented. In simpler English, the choice made between the two applications cannot be changed. But this is the doctrine of election itself!
So, the logic is that elections are binding because elections are binding, or, otherwise stated, the fundamental proposition supporting the doctrine of election is the doctrine of election. I find this singularly unpersuasive reasoning. It amounts to saying that elections are binding merely because the court says so. ■ I think the court should state a better reason. I know of none, however, that is applicable to the facts of this case.
A pseudo-reason runs through some of the obiter dicta which is being relied on, namely, a thought expressed in Mann et al. and thoughtlessly repeated, that an election has the legal effect of a concession of priority. Of course an election, unless and until changed, does have the effect of a concession of priority, just as giving a man an anaesthetic has the effect of shooting him in the head. Either renders him unconscious. The question, however, which is the very question in this case, is the finality of the thing. A true concession is (on principles inapplicable here) binding on the one who concedes, and saying that an election has the effect of a concession is but another way of saying that it is binding; it is not to give a reason why it should be.
The quotations above from Fischel et al., setting forth the court’s expression of *952a possible second ground of its decision (the other one being extension of monopoly), clearly show that there really is no concession by anyone to anybody and that the whole idea of “concession” is a .legal fiction — really little more than an attempt at explaining a legal effect— predicated on conduct, viz., the taking out of a patent by the assignee. Tracing the idea back to its.apparent source, we find it in the Dunbar opinion’s quotation from a Commissioner’s opinion (see 47 F.2d 370, 18 CCPA at 1022) to the effect that in the Dunbar case (where there would have been both extension of the monopoly and two outstanding patents on the same invention as there would also have been in Mann et al. where Dunbar was being quoted) it was said that the assignee was
“just as much bound by that election as if an interference had been declared [between Dunbar and Dyson] and priority decided in favor • of Dyson.” [My emphasis.]
In Mann et al. the opinion gave this thought a twist in a dictum to the effect that the election “was in legal effect a concession of priority.” [My emphasis.] And now, in the majority opinion herein it gets a further twist and we are told that the ground of decision in the Mann et al. case was “that the election constituted a final determination of priority.” [My emphasis.] The majority opinion fails to note, however, that in Mann et al. the court not only cited and relied on two extension of monopoly cases, In re Dunbar and Haight v. Nell, 1927 C.D. 4, quoted the passage from the Dunbar case stating, as a reason for considering an election to be binding, that if “repudiated] * * * monopoly would obviously be extended.” It also overlooks the passage, above quoted from Fischel et al., which states not only that the Mann et al. and earlier decisions were based on the doctrine of election, but that that doctrine was based on extension of monopoly, this court having italicized that clause for emphasis. To me, it is a signal distortion of the law to say that the Mann et al. decision was not based on extension of monopoly. It was present in the facts of the case and this court' in Fischel et al. (136 F.2d 254, 30 CCPA p. 1089) said just the opposite while four of the five judges who decided the Mann et al. case were still on the court, including the author of the opinion.
It is interesting to examine the record and briefs in Mann et al. and to find that there is not one word in them about either “election” or “concession of priority.” Since these papers are not published, I think it may shed a little light on this field of law to state that the gist of the Patent Office case in Mann et al. is expressed in the following three short paragraphs from its 5-page brief:
“Appellants raise the point that this application has an earlier filing date than the filing date of their patent. If there were two inventions involved, a different situation ' would be presented. It is submitted, however, that a comparison of the patent and application claims will show that there is but one invention in the two cases.
**■**» *
“If an assignee is the owner of a plurality of applications each containing the same invention, after .he has taken out his patent on one of his applications he would not be allowed to obtain a patent on any of •his other applications for the same invention.
“It was never intended that the Patent Office should grant two patents to the same party for the same invention.”
The appellants’ argument was that their patent and their application were for patentably different subject matter and their brief states the sole issue to be whether their patent was an anticipation. The board so treated the case, deciding it in a two page opinion holding merely that the application claims did not distinguish from the reference. The court’s self-involvement in theories of election and hypothetical concessions of priority appears to have been gratuitous and is *953somewhat difficult to understand. They were certainly not briefed or considered by the board. It seems to have been embroidering upon the Dunbar case opinion.
The argument that the public has an interest in preventing correction of the error made in this case does not impress me favorably. It seems to be out of tune with patent law as manifest in the statutes. An entire chapter of Title 35 U.S.C., is devoted to “Amendment and Correction of Patents,” Chapter 25, Secs. 251-256. Furthermore, the 1952 Act liberalized the law there set forth in several particulars with respect to reissue, correction, and particularly disclaimer. For the first time provision was made by statute for disclaiming a “terminal part of the term” of a patent, the very provision appellant seeks to avail himself of here. That provision did not exist until nearly ten years after the Fischel case was decided. Its specific purpose, apparent on its face, is to enable patentees to avoid extension of monoply in “double patenting” situations which had theretofore resulted in the invalidating of patents or the prevention of their issuance because, if issued, they would be invalid on account of extension of monopoly. It might also be mentioned as an indication of a liberal trend on the part of the legislature that Sec. 255 permitting applicants to correct certain errors was entirely new, that Sec. 251 made it explicit that reissue could be had if- the patentee claimed less than he was entitled to, as well as when he claimed too much, and that “error without any deceptive intention” was sufficient reason for reissue, rather than the prior requirement that there be “inadvertence, accident, or mistake.” (See R.S. § 4916). Also the law invalidating an entire patent for failure promptly to disclaim a claim known to be invalid was done away with by deleting the provision in the old disclaimer law, R.S. § 4922, which brought about that result. Sec. 256 was an entirely new section liberalizing the practice with respect to changing the names •of inventors on patent applications. All of this is the antithesis of a public policy preventing the correction of mistakes, including mistakes in issued patents.
While no arbitrary rule can be enunciated, the application of which will constitute a decisive test for all cases, it is my view that Z & W, as assignee, was entitled to correct the error it made in causing the Ziherl patent to issue. It did not in fact possess the right to obtain a valid patent on the Ziherl application, because Ziherl did not make the invention, and Z &' W mistook its proper course. It discovered this fact promptly after issuance of the patent and moved promptly to correct the error after discovery of the facts. Z & W has already eradicated the Ziherl patent by total disclaimer and the prima facie monopoly it represented, thereby meeting the first reason given in Fischel for making an election binding. Through Hession’s offer of record to make terminal disclaimer if he gets a patent, the possibility of extension of monopoly has been eliminated. The second so-called “reason,” prevention of avoidance of an imaginary determination of “priority,” I find wholly unpersuasive on the issue of whether or not the election is binding.
So far as public interest is concerned, I believe the public has an interest in the correction of error, where it has in no way been damaged, which is superior to whatever interest it may have in mere uniformity of “doctrine” or in mere administrative convenience. No injury to the public has been shown.
The examiner and the board additionally cited In re Siu, 222 F.2d 267, 42 CCPA 864, 105 USPQ 428, to support the contention that Hession’s terminal disclaimer, and Ziherl’s disclaimer as well, availed him nothing. In the Siu case, although the reference was a patent owned by a common assignee and a terminal disclaimer was submitted, thus giving a semblance of similarity to this case, the ground of rejection was that there was only a single invention on which two patents could not be issued, Underwood v. Gerber, 149 U.S. 224, 13 S.Ct. 854, 37 L.Ed. 710, ba'-iag been *954relied on by the Patent Office. Obviously a terminal disclaimer could not avoid that rejection. There would still be two outstanding patents on a single invention. Th.e solicitor has not relied on the Siu case and I do not regard it as in point. Nothing was there done, as has been done here, to eliminate the patent which the common assignee had already obtained. In the Siu case there was no discussion of any “election.”
For the foregoing reasons I would reverse the rejection grounded on “double patenting” or on the “doctrine of election,” whichever is the basis intended in the Patent Office, and hold that Z & W, the assignee of the Hession application, was entitled to rectify the error made by the means adopted. Hession, holding title to the invention from Z & W is.entitled to the benefit of this decision.
So much for my views on the “doctrine of election” and whether this court has ever held that an election is binding under the conditions prevailing in this case. The majority says “there is no doubt about the law” and concludes that the election is binding. Would that it were so clear! My study of the law of the “doctrine of election” leaves me in some doubt which I resolve on the basis of certain basic principles with the result that in this case I see no reason, and have been shown none, why the wrong choice made against the Hession application should not be subject to correction.
If that point be not held against Hession, another rejection is outstanding against- him. It is not inconceivable that there could be a rehearing in this case and because of the possibility of such an event, I here repeat what I said in my earlier unaccepted opinion on that point, so that my views may be known.
The Board’s Statutory Bar Rejection
In its first opinion the board said,
“ * * * we feel that we should call attention to another matter that has not been mentioned by either the examiner or the appellant. Regardless of all else, the fact remains that there is in existence • the Ziherl patent document having, an effective [filing] date earlier than the filing date of appellant. . In accordance with Section 102 of the Patent Statute, this document by its very existence is a bar to appellant unless properly antedated.”
The board had reference to 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) reading:
“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
* * * * * *
“(e) the invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention thereof by the applicant for. . patent, * *. [Emphasis mine.]
The board expressed the further view that Hession should produce “factual evidence to denote his invention of the instant subject matter earlier than the effective date of the patent document” which should “have the full character specified in Rule 131.” The board then said, “the absence of a showing as noted to establish appellant’s inventorship earlier than the effective date of the Ziherl patent would itself preclude any holding in appellant’s favor.”
By request for reconsideration, Hession in effect asserted that this was a new ground of rejection and that he was entitled to have the case remanded to the examiner so he could show by satisfactory evidence that he made his invention before Ziherl’s filing date.
In its opinion denying reconsideration the board also refused to remand, insisting that it had not presented a new ground of rejection, saying:
“We do not agree with appellant that the comments in question involve any new ground of rejection. It appears to us that it would stand to reason that in any contention such as here involved of entitlement to a patent because of earlier *955■inventorship than another, a necessary concomitant to such contention would be an affirmative establishment of the fact of such earlier inventorship. Hence, in referring to a lack of such prerequisite, our comments would not involve anything in the way of a new ground, . but would clearly relate only to consideration of a fundamental matter inherently part and parcel of appellant’s initial basic contention.” [Emphasis mine.]
I cannot agree. Assuming disposition of the ground of rejection that came up to the board from the examiner, I find that we are still left with the proposition that the Ziherl patent “document” is a statutory bar to the grant of a patent to Hession under section 102(e). This ground must, therefore, have originated with the board and perforce was a new ground. In any event, it must be disposed of. The question is, how?
Fundamentally, all we are concerned with is whether Hession’s invention was made before the filing date of the Ziherl patent. Before Ziherl filed had Hession “invented” his sprayer as claimed? If the answer is in the affirmative, section 102(e) is no obstacle.
On the record before us in this case I would have no hesitation in saying that Hession made his invention before Ziherl filed. I am satisfied that Ziherl did not make the invention at all and that the invention he disclosed to his solicitors for the preparation of his application was Hession’s invention. What further proof is required that Hession made the invention before Ziherl’s application was filed? The board’s doubt in the matter would seem to stem from its error in regarding the question here as one of “priority,” in the strict sense of that word, instead of a question of originality, which is what we actually have before us. There is in this case no question of “earlier inventorship,” to use the board’s phrase. The evidence of record overcomes Ziherl’s filing date.5
If I read the majority opinion correctly, four-fifths of the judges of this court, at least, have been convinced by the record made by Hession herein that he made the invention6 and that Ziherl derived it from him. This would be enough to win an interference ánd no more is required to overcome the Ziherl patent “document” as a bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
I see no valid reason to refuse a patent to Hession.

. Only for convenience do I use the expression “majority opinion” to refer to Judge Kirkpatrick’s opinion, with which only Judge Martin agrees. From the opinions herein it should be evident that the only part of that opinion which surely represents the view of a true majority'is the last word thereof, viz. “affirmed.”

. The reason I quote this term is that it has such a variety of meanings that it fails to denote a specific ground of rejection. It is, however, the term, and the only term, used in the examiner’s final rejection and in the Examiner’s Answer. It is that rejection which was afSrmcd by the Board of Appeals.

. No such separate license agreement was' ever entered into.

. It is customary to talk of the assignee making the “election.” It would be more realistic to think in terms of what is really done. The attorneys prosecuting the Hession application received an office action rejecting Hession’s claims because they were for the same invention as those in another pending application which was then being prosecuted by another firm. The Patent Oflice told him there was a common assignee. The real question the attorney had to answer was how to reply to the rejection, which involved several questions: Were the claims to the same invention? Were there two inventors or only one? Was there a' common assignee? After getting some answers, and getting control of the prosecution of the Ziherl application, the attorney then made the mistake of cancelling the rejected claims in the Hession application and issuing the Ziherl patent, The laiv terms that act an “election.” It is actually the act of an attorney for two applicants, who have assigned to one assignee, attempting, on the basis of information given to him by his client, to patent the invention to the proper applicant. It is quite unlikely, realistically, that the corporate assignee actually elected to do anything. It was the attorney’s choice. I have called it a wrong choice, as it certainly was, so as not to quibble about whether it was a “mistake” or an “error.”

. If it be argued that Hession is not shown to have completed his invention by reduction to practice prior to Ziherl’s filing date, the answer would be that in an originality case such as we have here, it has long been settled that a reduction to practice by the one who derived the invention from another inures to the benefit of the one who made the disclosure and Ziherl’s application would be a constructive reduction to practice of Hession’s invention as of its filing date. Therefore, that application would not show pri- or invention. Underwood’s Interference Practice (1928), page 224.

. In fact, this finding and knowledge of the fact so found by the corporation is one of the underlying bases for the holding of the majority opinion that no “mistake” was made.