Case ID: app-dc_41/html/0233-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Robb", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RADCLIFFE v. FOTTINGER.
    Patents; Interference; Prior Disclosure; Patentability.
    1. In an interference involving an application by IT. F. filed January 20, 1010, and one by C. R. filed June 28, 1907, relating to a fluid power of transmission device, the former applicant, in tlm absence of introduction of evidence by the latter, was held entitled to an award of priority by virtue of the disclosure in an earlier application, filed by him June 19, 1906.
    2. In an interference proceeding involving a device for fluid power transmission, it was held that the patentability of the counts of the issue would not be determined. (Following Putnam v. Wetmore, 39 App. D. C. 138; Mell v. Midgley, 31 App. D. C. 534; and Johnson v. Mucser, 29 App. D. C. 61.) ■
    No. 845.
    Patent Appeals.
    Submitted November 10, 1913.
    Decided December 1, 1913.
    Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    The Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows:
    This is an appeal from concurrent decisions of the tribunals of the Patent Office in an interference proceeding, awarding priority to Hermann Pottinger, the appellee. The invention relates to a fluid power transmission device, and the issue is expressed in five counts, but the first sufficiently illustrates the nature of the invention, and is here reproduced:
    “1. In a hydraulic power transmitting apparatus, the combination with a rotatable driving member, of a driven member adapted to rotate independently of said driven member, a casing inclosing said members and adapted to contain a liquid, a plurality of vanes on said driven member, the vanes on said driving member being adapted to direct liquid in a direction which has a radial component to the vanes of said driven member, and means for controlling the amount of liquid flowing to said driven member.”
    As originally declared, the interference involves an application of Hermann Fottinger filed January 26, 1910, and an application of Carlton E. Eadcliffe filed June 28, 1901. Pottinger filed a motion to shift the burden of proof, based upon an' alleged disclosure in an earlier application filed June 19, 1906, No. 322,395. The Examiner of Interferences ruled that this earlier application of Eottinger clearly disclosed the invention, and therefore granted the motion. In this decision he followed the decision of the Primary Examiner. As no testimony was taken by Radcliffe, he was required to show cause, under rule 119, why judgment on the record should not be rendered against him. Thereupon he tiled an answer, asserting that the counts of the issue were not patentable to either of the parties, in view of certain references, and that Eottinger was not entitled to the benefit of his earlier application. The Examiner of Interferences refused to consider the question of patentability, and held that Eottinger’s earlier application contained a full disclosure of the invention. Priority was therefore awarded Eottinger, and this,decision was later affirmed by the Examiners in Chief and then by the Commissioner in a well-considered opinion.
    
      2Ir. E. T. Brandenburg and Mr. J. F. Brandenburg for tlie appellant.
    
      Mr. C'lair W. Fairbanh for the appellee.
   Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Two questions are here presented: First, whether the disclosure in Eottinger’s earlier application “is such a full disclosure as is required by the Revised Statutes of the United States relating to patents,” and, second, whether the counts of the issue are patentable to either party in view of certain references. As to the first contention, after an examination of the earlier application, the claims of the issue, and the decisions of the various tribunals of the Patent Office, we have no hesitancy' in ruling that the original application fairly disclosed the idea more specifically' set forth in this divisional application, and hence that the requirements of the statute were fully met. The question being so free from doubt, and having been so fully treated in the Patent Office, we do not deem a further discussion of it here either necessary or profitable.

In the circumstances of th¿s case, the second, question is not open to discussion here. Putnam v. Wetmore, 39 App. D. C. 138; Melt v. Midgley, 31 App. D. C. 534; Johnson v. Mueser, 29 App. D. C. 61. The decision is affirmed. A {firmed.