Case ID: app-dc_42/html/0595-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Shepard", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LE COMPTE v. ADAMS ET AL.
    Patents; Interference; Appeal and Error.
    The unanimous finding of the Patent Office tribunals in favor of the claim of a junior applicant in interference to prior reduction to practice puts a heavy burden upon the senior applicant who appeals to this court, which will not disturb such finding, when convinced, from the consideration of the evidence, that there was no error.
    No. 914.
    Patent Appeal. Submitted November 9, 1934.
    Decided January 4, 1915.
    Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference case.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows:
    This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference involving a hinge specially adapted for use on wind shields on automobiles.
    
      ■ The issue is contained in one count as follows:
    
      “A casing to contain a plurality of hinge members, a plurality of rotatable hinge members each member having an axial part projecting through the casing, and each being formed with exterior gear teeth on which one hinge member is adapted to roll about the other member, and means to prevent the free rotation of the said hinge members consisting of manually actuated means to adjustably create friction between the casing and the hinge members.”
    The senior party, William G-. Le Oompte, the appellant, filed his application April 13, 1910. He took no testimony, but relies on his filing date for conception of the invention and reduction to practice.
    Edward S. Adams filed May 14, 1910. Edwin K. Conover and Walter W. Robinson filed September 2, 1910. They have appealed from the final decision, but their appeal has been dismissed.
    The preliminary statement of Adams alleges conception November 26, 1909, disclosure January 10, 1910, and reduction to practice middle of February, 1910.
    The Examiner of Interference found that Adams had established conception and actual reduction to practice as alleged, and awarded priority to Adams.
    Le Oompte appealed to the Examiners in Chief, who affirmed the decision of the Examiner of Interference.
    The Board held that Adams’ reduction to practice in February, 1910, was sustained by his proof, which showed that it was tried on a moving automobile and found to work successfully.
    ' On appeal to the Commissioner, the latter held that Adams’ evidence of reduction to practice was fully sustained by his corroborating witnesses. Consequently the decision of the Examiners in Chief was affirmed.
    This appeal is made from that decision.
    In a petition for rehearing a vigorous attack was made upon the testimony introduced by Adams to show reduction to practice, the argument being directed to the point that it was not shown that Adams’ trial hinge was the same as that exhibited by him. This petition was denied.
    
      Mr. Robert Craig Creene and Mr. J. 0. Fowler for the appellant.
    
      Mr. George M. Finckel, Mr. Paul Finckel, and Mr. G. A. Dieterich for the appellees.
   Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The argument in this court has been directed to the same question, Le Compte contending that Adams’s testimony as to the construction of his first hing’e and its test has not been corroborated. The unanimity of the Patent Office tribunals puts a heavy burden upon the appellant.

The consideration of the evidence in the light of the strong argument of the appellant convinces us that there was no error in the conclusion of the Patent Office tribunals, wherefore the Commissioner’s decision must be affirmed.

It is so ordered, and that the clerk of this court certify this decision to the Commissioner of Patents. Affirmed.