Case Name: STEUBING v. HENNESSY
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1921-01-03
Citations: 269 F. 719
Docket Number: No. 1354
Parties: STEUBING v. HENNESSY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 269
Pages: 719–719

Head Matter:
STEUBING v. HENNESSY.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted November 16, 1920.
Decided January 3, 1921.)
No. 1354.
Eatents ®=?113(7)—Concurrent decision of tribunals reversed, only if manifestly wrong.
Where the three tribunals of the Patent Office concurred in a decision in an interference proceeding, the Commissioner’s decision will be affirmed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, unless the court can say the decisions are manifestly wrong.
tSzs>For oilier cases see same topic & K13Y-NUMB33R in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
Interference proceeding between William Steubing, Jr., and Daniel E. Plennessy. From the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, awarding priority to Hennessy, Steubing appeals.
Affirmed.
John W. Strehli, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
IF Dorsey Spencer, of New York City, for appellee.

Opinion:
SMYTH, Chief Justice.
Steubing appeals from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents finding that I-Iennessy is entitled to priority with respect to an invention relating to lifting trucks of a certain type. There are 16 claims involved. The decision of the three tribunals of the Patent Office are concurrent. We cannot say that they are manifestly wrong, and hence, following a well-established rule of decision in this court (In re Barratt, 11 App. D. C. 177; Creveling v. Jepson, 47 App. D. C. 597; Reid et al. v. Kitselman [D. C.] 266 Fed. 255; and Lindmark v. Hodgkinson, 31 App. D. C. 612), we affirm the Commissioner's decision.
Affirmed.