Show Rehearlngs on Patents WASHINGTON May 1 Commissioner Mitchell of the patent office today rendered ren-dered an important decision in the interference inter-ference case of Daniels vs Morgan which involves the question of the right of a patent pat-ent commissioner to grant a rehearing of a case finally disposed of by his predecessor except in cases of fraud errors in computation compu-tation or discovery of new evidence March 23 Commissioner Hull awarded the priority of invention to Morgan and four days later on a motion for a rehear log set the hearing for April 10 At that time it was only understood by him that his successor was to take charge of the office April 10 April 10 the notion for a rehearing came before Commissioner Mitchell and the counsel for Morgan asked that i be dismissed as it asked for a rehearing of the decision of a former commissioner upon the same facts and evidence upon which the decision was base The matter was argued at some length and taken under consideration Commissioner sioner Mitchell now rules that the duties of the commissioner are in part admin strative and in part of a judicial nature and while the rule limiting the right of an administrate officer to review his predecessors pre-decessors decision may be applicable to him in an administrative capacity it is equally clear that it is not binding upon him in the discharge of his judicial duties The motion to dismiss the motion for rehearing re-hearing is therefore overruled |