Court Opinion

ID: 9443446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:20:29.626187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:29.345255
License: Public Domain

PARKER, Chief Judge
(dissenting in part).
I concur in the view that the patent here in suit involved patentable invention; and I think that Briggs was clearly shown to be the inventor. This matter was dealt with by the Patent Office in the interference proceeding as follows:
“The senior party, Briggs, was associated with the American Chain Company in 1923 and 1924 as consulting engineer. The evidence offered on his behalf shows that one Conner, an em*331ployee of that company, had developed a machine with which experiments were conducted at Bridgeport, Connecticut during the latter part of February, 1923. This machine was similar to that called for by the counts, except that it did not have a planetary action. Briggs testified that he suggested at that time that such action should be provided and this testimony is corroborated by that of Dechant. Since the planetary type of machine was old, and since the manner of combining it with that of Conner is obvious, it is thought that this suggestion shows a conception by Briggs of the invention in issue as early as March 1, 1923, and he is therefore accorded this date. * * * It is urged, however, that it has- not been shown that Briggs was the inventor of the.development considered. In this connection, it is to be noted that Briggs was evidently connected with the work and made at least one suggestion which was incorporated in the machine.”
I think that under the evidence before us this decision of the Patent Office was clearly correct and that there is nothing in the record which justifies a holding that the idea which led to successful combination of a preforming device with a planetary machine was not furnished by Briggs or that his patent application in 1925 was not intended to cover this basic concept.