Case Name: VALERIUS et al. v. PFOUTS
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1921-05-02
Citations: 273 F. 358
Docket Number: No. 1408
Parties: VALERIUS et al. v. PFOUTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 273
Pages: 358–359

Head Matter:
VALERIUS et al. v. PFOUTS.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted March 18, 1921.
Decided May 2, 1921.)
No. 1408.
Patents €=113(6) — Concurrent findings by Patent Office tribunals not reversed, unless clearly wrong.
Where the three tribunals of the Patent Office concurred in awarding priority to the same party, in interference proceedings which turned on a question of fact, the decision will be affirmed, unless clearly wrong.
Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
Interference proceeding between Theodore L. Valerius and another and Leroy S. Pfouts. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, awarding priority to Pfouts, Valerius and another appeal.
Affirmed.
George E. Tew, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Edward R. Alexander and George B. Pitts, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee.
@s»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes

Opinion:
SMYTH, Chief Justice.
Valerius and Larsen appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding relating to an improvement in ice cream freezers, whereby flavoring material may be admitted into the freezing cylinder at any stage in the' freezing process without interfering with the introduction of the next batch of cream mixture into the feed tank. The case turned upon a question of fact, and the three tribunals of the Office concurred in awarding priority to Pfouts.
We cannot find that this ruling is clearly wrong, and hence, according to the wribestrifliched practice (Dunham v. Dyson et al., 50 App. D. C. 338, 272 Fed. 206, and cases there cited), we affirm the decision of the Commissioner of Patents. All costs on the writ of certiorari issued at the instance of Pfouts are taxed against him.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice HTTZ, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sat in the place of Mr. Justice ROBB in the hearing and determination of this appeal.