Case Name: SWARTWOUT v. BARNES
Court: Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1910-12-05
Citations: 36 App. D.C. 129
Docket Number: No. 672
Parties: SWARTWOUT v. BARNES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia
Volume: 36
Pages: 129–130

Head Matter:
SWARTWOUT v. BARNES.
Patents ; Interference.
Where, in an interference proceeding, the sole issue is one of fact, this court will be slow to disturb the finding of the Commissioner of Patents, especially where the evidence appears to fully sustain his decision.
No. 672.
Patent Appeals.
Submitted November 11, 1910.
Decided December 5, 1910.
Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference case.
Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Messrs. Meyers, Cushman, & Rea and Mr. H. C. Seitz for the appellant.
Mr. Louis H. Sanders for the appellee.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Van Orsdel
delivered the opinion of the Court:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding. The Examiner of Interferences decided in favor of appellant, Emma J. Swartwout. This decision on appeal was reversed by the Board of Examinors-in-Chief, and the decision of the board was affirmed by the Commissioner, from whose decision appellant has brought the case to this court.
The invention relates to improvements in corset stays, and is sufficiently set forth for our purpose in the fourth count of the issue, as follows:
"A corset or dress stay consisting of a single elastic wire formed into a series of substantially closed and aligned tandem triangular loops, all normally lying in the same plane."
Where the sole issue is one of fact, we are slow to disturb the finding of the Patent Office, especially, as in this case,, where the evidence appears to fully sustain the conclusion reached by the Commissioner. The tribunals of the Patent Office in their opinions have very fully and accurately reviewed the evidence, and it would be useless effort expended on our part to rehearse it again.
The decision of the Commissioner is right, and is therefore affirmed. The clerk is directed to certify these proceedings, as by law required. Affirmed.