APPLICATION OF MARTIN GLABERSON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Wark et al. patent could not be used as prior art because its filing date was after the appellant's application date.
Appellant sought a design patent for a safety razor case. The examiner and Board of Appeals rejected the claim, relying in part on the Wark et al. pat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Patent Application Filing Date cases and more on FLexlaw
RICH, Judge.
This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals affirming the examiner’s rejection of appellant’s claim in application serial No. D-26,605, filed August 27, 1953, for a design for a safety razor case. The references relied upon are: Schladermundt et al. D-165,346 Dec. 4, 1951 Wark et al. D-172,912 Aug. 24,1954 Becken Book, 1942, page 301, Item 301 H 4. National Carbon Co., May 1, 1926, pages 1 and 2. It became belatedly apparent at the oral argument in this court that the Wark et al. reference may not legally be used as a reference to show prior art since the application for that patent was not filed until November 20, 1953, nearly three months after the filing of appellant’s application. 35 U.S.C. § 102. The Patent Office solicitor conceded at the argument that this legal error had been made. Since it is evident that both the examiner and the Board of Appeals proceeded under a misunderstanding, the examiner definitely relying on Wark et al. and the board finding that “the examiner’s action is without reversible error,” and the parties having briefed the case on the same misunderstanding, we are reversing the decision of the board and remanding the case to the Patent Office with instructions to reexamine the application without regard to the Wark et al. patent. We express no opinion on the merits at this time. Reversed and remanded.
JACKSON, J., retired, recalled to participate.