Case ID: f_277/html/0861-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SMYTH, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RUTH v. GROCH (two cases).
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted November 23, 1921.
    Decided January 3, 1922.)
    Nos. 1455, 1456.
    Patents <§=>113(7)—Concurrent fluffing of three tribunals, not palpably wrong, will not be disturbed.
    Where the three tribunals of the Patent Office each awarded priority to the same party in interference proceedings, their conclusion will be sustained, unless the court can say it was palpably wrong.
    <§=»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER, in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    
      Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
    Two separate interference proceedings between Joseph P. Ruth, Jr., and Frank Groch, were submitted togéther. From a decision awarding priority in each proceeding to Groch, Ruth appeals.
    Affirmed.
    A. J. O’Brien, of Denver, Colo., and J. M. Spear, of.Washington, D. C., for appellant.
    Floyd B. Wight, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
   SMYTH, Chief Justice.

These are interference proceedings which were submitted together and will be disposed of in one opinion. The first relates to flotation apparatus for concentrating ores, wherein the metallic values are caused to be separated and independently removed from the gangue way by the selective action of froth-producing agencies, and the second, to a gas-diffusing device for flotation apparatus. By stipulation the same testimony has been used in both cases.

The first interference is expressed in four counts, and the second in five. In each case the three tribunals of the Patent Office united in awarding priority to Groch. The tribunals in their opinions analyzed the testimony carefully, and made it very clear that the conclusion reached is correct. Certainly we cannot say that it is palpably wrong, and hence we sustain it. Maremont v. Olson, 49 App. D. C. 369, 265 Fed. 1009; Kitselman v. Reid, 49 App. D. C. 378, 266 Fed. 256; Ball v. Barnhurst, 50 App. D. C. 257, 270 Fed. 693; Massey v. Ridge, 50 App. D. C. 271, 270 Fed. 879.

The decision of the commissioner is affirmed.

Affirmed.