Du Rell v. Haley

District of Columbia

Du Rell v. Haley

267 F. 351, 50 App. D.C. 49, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 2182

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJune 2, 1920

DocketNo. 1310

StatusPublished

This text of 267 F. 351 (Du Rell v. Haley) 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

Du Rell v. Haley, 267 F. 351, 50 App. D.C. 49, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 2182 (D.D.C. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tribunals in an interference proceeding, in which priority was awarded the junior party.

The invention involves a process and apparatus for concentration of ores. The claims are 12 in number, but it is unnecessary to repeat them here. Each of the Patent Office tribunals has held that appellant’s early efforts did not amount to reduction to practice, and that, as he did nothing thereafter for almost two years, and appellee entered the field meanwhile, he was lacking in diligence. Each of those tribunals has carefully and satisfactorily discussed the evidence in behalf of appellant, and for the reasons stated by them we affirm the decision from which this appeal was taken.

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 tribunals in an interference proceeding, in which priority was awarded the junior party.

The invention involves a process and apparatus for concentration of ores. The claims are 12 in number, but it is unnecessary to repeat them here. Each of the Patent Office tribunals has held that appellant’s early efforts did not amount to reduction to practice, and that, as he did nothing thereafter for almost two years, and appellee entered the field meanwhile, he was lacking in diligence. Each of those tribunals has carefully and satisfactorily discussed the evidence in behalf of appellant, and for the reasons stated by them we affirm the decision from which this appeal was taken.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 F. 351, 50 App. D.C. 49, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 2182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/du-rell-v-haley-dcd-1920.