Case Name: TAKAMINE v. KOHMAN
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1924-03-03
Citations: 296 F. 1021
Docket Number: No. 1627
Parties: TAKAMINE v. KOHMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 296
Pages: 1021–1021

Head Matter:
TAKAMINE v. KOHMAN.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 16, 1924.
Decided March 3, 1924.)
No. 1627.
Patents <©=>106(3), 113(7)-»Junior party has heavy burden to sustain, both ii Patent Office and on appeal from adverse decision.
In an interference proceeding, where senior party’s patent was issued prior to the date junior party filed bis application, junior party has a heavy burden as to question of fact in the Patent Office, and a still heavier burden on appeal from a decision in favor of senior party.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
Interference proceeding between Jokichi Takamine, whose application was filed January 9, 1919, and Henry A. Kohman, whose patent was issued August 6, 1918, on an application filed February 15, 1918. From a decision awarding priority to the last-named party, first-named party appeals.
Affirmed.
Samuel H. Darby, of New York City, for appellant.
W. B. Morton, of New York City, for appellee.
Before ROBB and VAN ORSDEF» Associate Tustices, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
<@=For other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes

Opinion:
PFR CURIAM.
This appeal is from concurrent decisions in an interference proceeding concerning a method of making bread, and involves an application and a patent issued prior to the filing date of the application. The case turns upon questions of fact, and while the burden in the Patent Office was heavily upon appellant, it is still heavier here. Bungay v. Grey, 52 App. D. C. 63, 65, 281 Fed. 423. A careful review of the extended opinions of the Patent Office tribunals, in the light of appellant's argument and brief, has failed to cause us to reach a conclusion different from that reached below. Consequently, we affirm the decision.
Affirmed."