Case ID: f_278/html/1019-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ROBB, Associate Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONVERY v. BRUCKER.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted November 15, 1921.
    Decided March 6, 1922.)
    No. 1430.
    Patents <&wkey;>l 13(7) — Concurrent decisions of three Patent Office tribunals sustained.
    The concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tribunals in an interference proceeding, awarding priority to the senior party, whose filing date w-as prior to the junior party’s earliest claimed date of reduction to practice, held,, correct.
    Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
    Interference proceeding between John J. Convery and F. H. Brucker. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, awarding priority to Brucker, Convery appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Robert F. Rogers and Edmund H. Parry, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
    William F. Hall, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
   ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal fi-om concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tribunals in an interference proceeding in which priority was awarded the senior party, Brucker, whose filing date was prior to appellant’s earliest claimed date of reduction to practice.

The tribunals below having fully and satisfactorily disposed of every contention made by appellant, we affirm the decision appealed from, without further discussion.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice HITZ, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sat in the place of Mr. Justice VAN ORSDEL in the hearing and determination of this appeal.