Anderson v. Symons

D.C. Circuit

Anderson v. Symons

281 F. 430, 52 App. D.C. 70, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2096

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 1922

DocketNo. 1497

StatusPublished

This text of 281 F. 430 (Anderson v. Symons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Symons, 281 F. 430, 52 App. D.C. 70, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2096 (D.C. Cir. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office in an interference proceeding awarding priority to the party Symons. The invention relates to improvements in stone and ore crushers of the disc type, and particularly covers means for the adjustment of the opposed discs.'

. The Examiner of Interferences found that Anderson had established conception about July of 1915, and Symons in July of 1911, but that Symons had not reduced the invention to practice, and was lacking in diligence at the time of Anderson’s entry into the field. The Examiners in Chief accepted the Examiner’s finding as to tire dates of conception by the respective parties, but found that Symons actually reduced the invention to practice prior to Anderson’s conception. The [431]*431Assistant Commissioner, again reviewing the evidence, agreed with the Examiners in Chief, and therefore affirmed the decision. We regard the question as so free from doubt as to warrant our affirmance of the decision without further discussion of the evidence.

The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice HITZ, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sitting in the place of Mr. Justice VAN ORSDEL in the hearing and determination of this appeal, concurs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office in an interference proceeding awarding priority to the party Symons. The invention relates to improvements in stone and ore crushers of the disc type, and particularly covers means for the adjustment of the opposed discs.'

. The Examiner of Interferences found that Anderson had established conception about July of 1915, and Symons in July of 1911, but that Symons had not reduced the invention to practice, and was lacking in diligence at the time of Anderson’s entry into the field. The Examiners in Chief accepted the Examiner’s finding as to tire dates of conception by the respective parties, but found that Symons actually reduced the invention to practice prior to Anderson’s conception. The [431]*431Assistant Commissioner, again reviewing the evidence, agreed with the Examiners in Chief, and therefore affirmed the decision. We regard the question as so free from doubt as to warrant our affirmance of the decision without further discussion of the evidence.

The decision is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice HITZ, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sitting in the place of Mr. Justice VAN ORSDEL in the hearing and determination of this appeal, concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 F. 430, 52 App. D.C. 70, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-symons-cadc-1922.