Braley v. Melzer

D.C. Circuit

Braley v. Melzer

11 F.2d 998, 56 App. D.C. 400, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2650

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 5, 1926

DocketPatent Appeal No. 1847

StatusPublished

This text of 11 F.2d 998 (Braley v. Melzer) 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

Braley v. Melzer, 11 F.2d 998, 56 App. D.C. 400, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2650 (D.C. Cir. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent Office in an interference proceeding awarding priority of invention to the party Melzer.

The invention is simple and specifically relates to a treadle operating toggle mechanism for closing the press in a garment pressing machine. Braley has taken no testimony, and therefore is restricted to his filing date of December 8, 1916, for conception and constructive reduction to practice. The Board of Examiners in Chief and the Assistant Commissioner, after a careful analysis of the testimony, found that Melzer conceived the invention in 1915 and that his conception was followed by due diligence.

The question is one of fact, and we are quite content to rest our decision upon the conclusions of those two tribunals. Considering the circumstances surrounding Melzer, by which the question of diligence must be determined, we are fully convinced that he has established diligence within the rule announced in Joy v. Morgan, 54 App. D. C. 110, 295 F. 931. The decision therefore is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

ROBB, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent Office in an interference proceeding awarding priority of invention to the party Melzer.

The invention is simple and specifically relates to a treadle operating toggle mechanism for closing the press in a garment pressing machine. Braley has taken no testimony, and therefore is restricted to his filing date of December 8, 1916, for conception and constructive reduction to practice. The Board of Examiners in Chief and the Assistant Commissioner, after a careful analysis of the testimony, found that Melzer conceived the invention in 1915 and that his conception was followed by due diligence.

The question is one of fact, and we are quite content to rest our decision upon the conclusions of those two tribunals. Considering the circumstances surrounding Melzer, by which the question of diligence must be determined, we are fully convinced that he has established diligence within the rule announced in Joy v. Morgan, 54 App. D. C. 110, 295 F. 931. The decision therefore is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F.2d 998, 56 App. D.C. 400, 1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braley-v-melzer-cadc-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack