Doyle v. Tomlinson

District of Columbia

Doyle v. Tomlinson

265 F. 461, 49 App. D.C. 311, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1424

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedApril 5, 1920

DocketNo. 1287

StatusPublished

This text of 265 F. 461 (Doyle v. Tomlinson) 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

Doyle v. Tomlinson, 265 F. 461, 49 App. D.C. 311, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1424 (D.D.C. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from concurrent decisions of the Patent Office awarding priority of invention to the senior party, Tomlinson. We reproduce the second of the two claims of the issue:

”2. In a coupling for electric train line circuits, the combination of a easing, [462]*462fixed contact fingers mounted tlie ein and connected to the respective circuits, a movable contact carrier normally hold out of operative position, and a fluid pressure mechanism for shifting said contact carrier to its operative position to establish electrical connection between said fixed contacts and the corresponding fixed contacts of an adjacent car.” .

Upon the declaration of the interference appellants filed a motion for its dissolution, on the ground that Tomlinson has no right to make the claims of the issue. The question was elaborately reviewed by the Daw Examiner, who found in favor of Tomlinson. Thereupon the Examiner of Interferences awarded priority on the record to Tomlinson, appellants having failed to show cause why that should not be done. On appeal to the Examiners in Chief, the question of Tomlinson’s right to make the claims was again reviewed, and that right sustained. The question was again raised and considered by the Assistant Commissioner, with the same result.

For the reasons announced in the preceding case, Brown v. Tomlinson (No. 1254) 49 App. D. C. —, 265 Fed. 460, we affirm he decision of the Patent Office.

Affirmed.

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

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from concurrent decisions of the Patent Office awarding priority of invention to the senior party, Tomlinson. We reproduce the second of the two claims of the issue:

”2. In a coupling for electric train line circuits, the combination of a easing, [462]*462fixed contact fingers mounted tlie ein and connected to the respective circuits, a movable contact carrier normally hold out of operative position, and a fluid pressure mechanism for shifting said contact carrier to its operative position to establish electrical connection between said fixed contacts and the corresponding fixed contacts of an adjacent car.” .

Upon the declaration of the interference appellants filed a motion for its dissolution, on the ground that Tomlinson has no right to make the claims of the issue. The question was elaborately reviewed by the Daw Examiner, who found in favor of Tomlinson. Thereupon the Examiner of Interferences awarded priority on the record to Tomlinson, appellants having failed to show cause why that should not be done. On appeal to the Examiners in Chief, the question of Tomlinson’s right to make the claims was again reviewed, and that right sustained. The question was again raised and considered by the Assistant Commissioner, with the same result.

For the reasons announced in the preceding case, Brown v. Tomlinson (No. 1254) 49 App. D. C. —, 265 Fed. 460, we affirm he decision of the Patent Office.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 F. 461, 49 App. D.C. 311, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doyle-v-tomlinson-dcd-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack