Anglada v. Moyer

273 F. 359, 50 App. D.C. 395, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 1466
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedMay 2, 1921
DocketNos. 1409, 1410
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 F. 359 (Anglada v. Moyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anglada v. Moyer, 273 F. 359, 50 App. D.C. 395, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 1466 (D.D.C. 1921).

Opinion

SMYTH, Chief Justice,

These appeals are from a decision of the Patent Office in an interference case relating to a locking device for [360]*360a demountable tire rim for automobiles. There are four interferants. Moyer was successful before each of the three tribunals of the Office. Anglada and Bryant appeal — Anglada against Moyer, Carroll, and Bryant; and Bryant against Carroll, Anglada, and Moyer.

The question involved is one of fact, and a careful study of the record fails to reveal palpable error on the part of the Commissioner. Therefore, following the rule announced in Valerius et al. v. Pfouts, 50 App. D. C. 394, 273 Fed. 358, this day decided, his decision in awarding priority to Moyer is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mr.-Justice HITZ, 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.

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

Related

Clement v. McQuarrie
278 F. 587 (D.C. Circuit, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 F. 359, 50 App. D.C. 395, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 1466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anglada-v-moyer-dcd-1921.