B-148379, JUN. 29, 1962
Highlights
PRECEDENT IN THE DISPOSITION OF YOUR CASE IS NOT UNDERSTOOD IN VIEW OF PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE. WHAT IS HERE INVOLVED IS THE INTERPRETATION OF AN ORDER WHICH YOU MAILED TO THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE FOR COPIES OF DOCUMENTS INCIDENT TO AN INTERFERENCE PROCEEDING BEFORE THAT OFFICE. A PROCEEDING IN WHICH YOU WERE A PARTY. "YOUR REQUEST WAS ONE FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION AND IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS MADE. THE FACT THAT AN EXTENSION OF TIME COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED DOES NOT NEGATE THE APPARENT PURPOSE OF YOUR REQUEST. "THE SPECIAL HANDLING BY THE PATENT OFFICE OF YOUR ORDER WAS IN KEEPING OF YOUR REQUEST. YOU ARE CHARGEABLE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THAT OFFICER'S PUBLISHED RULES REGARDING SERVICE FEES.
B-148379, JUN. 29, 1962
TO MR. HYMAN A. MICHLIN:
YOUR LETTER OF MAY 29, 1962, REQUESTING OUR FINDINGS OF FACT, LAW, AND PRECEDENT IN THE DISPOSITION OF YOUR CASE IS NOT UNDERSTOOD IN VIEW OF PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE, PARTICULARLY OUR LETTER OF APRIL 16, 1962.
WHAT IS HERE INVOLVED IS THE INTERPRETATION OF AN ORDER WHICH YOU MAILED TO THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE FOR COPIES OF DOCUMENTS INCIDENT TO AN INTERFERENCE PROCEEDING BEFORE THAT OFFICE, A PROCEEDING IN WHICH YOU WERE A PARTY. SPECIFICALLY, WHETHER YOU CALLED FOR SPECIAL SERVICE, AND BECAME LIABLE FOR THE PRESCRIBED SPECIAL SERVICE FEES, BY THE INCLUSION IN YOUR ORDER OF THE REQUEST,"KINDLY MAKE THIS ORDER SPECIAL.'
IN OUR LETTER OF APRIL 16, 1962, WE STATED...
"YOUR REQUEST WAS ONE FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION AND IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS MADE--- A PROCEEDING CALLING FOR A RESPONSE WITHIN A GIVEN TIME--- THE REQUEST WOULD APPEAR TO BE MEANINGFUL ONLY AS A REQUEST FOR EARLY SERVICE, OR SERVICE AHEAD OF REGULAR ORDER. THE FACT THAT AN EXTENSION OF TIME COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED DOES NOT NEGATE THE APPARENT PURPOSE OF YOUR REQUEST.
"THE SPECIAL HANDLING BY THE PATENT OFFICE OF YOUR ORDER WAS IN KEEPING OF YOUR REQUEST. FURTHERMORE, YOU ARE CHARGEABLE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THAT OFFICER'S PUBLISHED RULES REGARDING SERVICE FEES, FOR THE PAYMENT OF WHICH YOU MAINTAINED A DEPOSIT ACCOUNT. 37 C.F.R. 1.21. CONSEQUENTLY, THERE APPEARS NO BASIS, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VARIOUS MATTERS YOU HAVE PRESENTED, FOR RELIEVING YOU OF THE SPECIAL SERVICE CHARGE.' YOUR CASE INVOLVES THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE---
"THE MEANING THAT WILL DETERMINE LEGAL EFFECT IS THAT WHICH IS ARRIVED AT BY OBJECTIVE STANDARDS; ONE IS BOUND, NOT BY WHAT HE SUBJECTIVELY INTENDS, BUT BY WHAT HE LEADS THE OTHERS REASONABLY TO THINK THAT HE INTENDS.' CORBIN, CARDOZO AND THE LAW OF CONTRACT, 52 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 446. SEE CORBIN ON CONTRACTS, SECTION 538, NOTE 51, FOR VARIOUS CASES INVOLVING THE PRINCIPLE.
YOU ARE ADVISED THAT FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE AS TO YOUR LIABILITY FOR THE SPECIAL SERVICE CHARGE WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE. OUR OFFICE, HOWEVER, WILL MAINTAIN A RECORD OF YOUR INDEBTEDNESS.