Appeal No. 96-2905
Application No. 29/008,076
§ 1.194 (a). The eight new members of the panel gave the
issue presented in this appeal the same consideration as the
original three members.
In addition, as stated in Alappat, 33 F.3d at 1532, n. 2,
31 USPQ2d at 1547, n. 2,
Both this court and the Court of Customs and Patent
Appeals (CCPA), one of this court's predecessors, have
reviewed Board decisions rendered by panels made up of
more than three Board members without questioning the
validity of such panels. See e.g., Hahn v. Wong, 892
F.2d 1028, 1031, 13 USPQ2d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
(seven-member panel because of significance of issues
raised); In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 1219, 227 USPQ 90,
92 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (eighteen-member panel); In re
Durden, 763 F.2d 1406, 1409 n.3, 226 USPQ 359, 360 n.3
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (sixteen-member panel); In re Henriksen,
399 F.2d 253, 254 n.1, 158 USPQ 224, 225 n.1 (CCPA 1968)
(nine-member panel because of "the nature of the legal
issues raised"). Other instances wherein the
Commissioner has convened an expanded panel include Ex
parte Alpha Indus. Inc., 22 USPQ2d 1851, 1852 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Inter. 1992) (five-member panel); Ex parte Fujii,
13 USPQ2d 1073, 1074 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989)
(five-member panel because of significance of issue
raised); Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701, 1702 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (five-member panel); Ex parte
Kitamura, 9 USPQ2d 1787, 1788 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.
1988) (five-member panel because of possible conflict in
case law); Lamont v. Berguer, 7 USPQ2d 1580, 1581 (Bd.
Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) (five-member panel because of
novelty of issue raised); Kwon v. Perkins, 6 USPQ2d 1747,
1748 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) (nine-member panel
because of novelty of issues raised); Ex parte Horton,
226 USPQ 697, 698 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
(five-member panel); Ex parte Tytgat, 225 USPQ 907, 908
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007