In re Hernandez

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted May 14, 1924.

Decided June 2, 1924.)

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1924-06-02

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1936

1 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relies on 21 App. D.C. 519 - In re Starkey · In re Otto · 29 App. D.C. 91 - In re Ams

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1924-06-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Benjamin Roman, of New York City, for appellant.

¶2Theodore A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.

¶3Before ROBB and VAN. ORSDED, Associate Justices, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appeal from concurrent decisions of the Patent Office

¶6tribunals refusing to allow this reissue' application with broader claims, it having been filed almost three years after the issuance of the original patent. The Patent Office tribunals have carefully considered the facts and have found that no special circumstances have been shown to excuse the delay. We concur in this finding. See In re Starkey, 21 App. D. C. 519, In re Ams, 29 App. D. C. 91, and In re Otto, 259 Fed. 985, 49 App. D. C. 89. The decision is affirmed. Affirmed.