In re Martin
In re Martin
Opinion of the Court
of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, who sat with the Court in the hearing- and determination of the appeal in the place of Mr. Justice Nobis, delivered the opinion of the Court:
The examiner based his decision upon the ground that Martin was estopped by laches to make the claims of the present application, because he failed to move under the rule 109 of the Patent Office to be allowed to amend and bring those claims into the Dyson interference, but that if there were no estoppel by reason of laches he was estopped by the judgment of priority in that interference. The Board of Examiners in Chief and the Commissioner placed their decision entirely on the ground of estoppel.
There was no judgment of priority in the Dyson interference in favor of Goodrum against Martin; consequently, there can be no estoppel by judgment.
Assuming that Martin should have moved under rule 109, his failure to do so is not shown to have resulted in injury to anyone; therefore, one of the elements necessary to an estoppel is absent.
The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is reversed, and the clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as by law required.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- IN RE MARTIN
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Patents; Interference; Estopped; Judgment of Priority; Laches. Where M. filed an application for a patent which was placed in interference with the applications of D. and G., and subsequently filed an other application claiming different features of the same subject-matter, which claims were readable on the specification of G., who was later given a patent covering- such claims, and M. failed to move under rule 109 of the Patent Office to amend his first application so as to bring such claims into the interference, and there was a decision of one of the Patent Office tribunals, from which he took no appeal, in favor of D., whose specification did not disclose such features, it was held, reversing a decision of the Commissioner rejecting the claims of the second application of M., who was seeking interference with the patent of G.: (I) That there was no judgment of priority in the interference as to such claims in favor of G. and against M., and hence there was no estoppel by judgment; and (2) that M. was not estopped by laches from making the claims, as his failure to move under rule 109 was not shown to have resulted in injury to anyone.