154a.  Patentability  of  the  Issue — Rule  130.  One  who
desires  to  question  the  patentability  of  the  issue  to  his
opponent,  should  first  make  a  motion  to  dissolve  under
Eule  122,  upon  the  ground  that  the  claims  are  not  pat-
entable to  his  opponent,  or  in  other  words,  that  his  op-
ponent has  no  right  to  make  the  claims,  and  he  may  then
argue  the  question  on  final  hearing.  Eule  130  is  intended
to  pro^*ide  for  the  contingency  that  one  party  may  have
the  right  to  make  the  claims  and  another  party  may  not
have  the  right  to  make  them.  It  can  not  be  urged  under
this  rule  that  none  of  the  parties,  including  the  moving
party,  have  a  right  to  make  the  claims,  or  that  the  counts
are  not  patentable,  generally,  over  the  prior  art.  But
where  a  motion  to  dissolve  assails  the  right  of  one  of  the
parties  for  any  reason  to  make  the  claims,  the  question
of  priority  is  directly  involved,  since  one  who  can  not
make  the  claims  would  not  in  any  event  be  entitled  to  an
award  of  priority.  Elsom  v.  Bonner  d-  Golde,  246  0.  G.
299,  46  App.  D.  C.  230.  Rule  130  only  gives  a  party  the
right  to  argue  at  final  hearing  the  unpatentability  of  the
clainLs  to  an  opponent,  and  then  only  when  it  is  material

84


to  the  right  of  such  joarty  to  a  patent,  and  other  questions
arising"  on  motion  to  dissolve,  may  not  be  presented  on
final  hearing,  nor  can  a  party  argue  the  patentability  of
the  issue  over  the  prior  art.  Molyneux  v.  Onderdonk,
191  0.  G.  292  (1918)  ;  Ilavemcyer  v.  Coryell,  186  0.  G.
