Dutcher v. Jackson

D.C. Circuit

Dutcher v. Jackson

269 F. 688, 50 App. D.C. 172, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 2329

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided January 3, 1921·No. No. 1329·Published

Opinion

SMYTH, Chief Justice.

This in an interference proceeding in which priority was awarded by the Commissioner of Patents to the senior party. The invention relates to railway signal torpedoes and the controversy turns on a question of fact. Each of the tribunals of the Patent Office decided in favor of Jackson. We have examined the record and are unable to say that they were clearly wrong. In view of this, the decision of the Commissioner must be, and it is, affirmed. In re Barratt, 11 App. D. C. 177; Creveling v. Jepson, 47 App. D. C. 597; Reid et al. v. Kitselman (D. C.) 266 Fed. 255 ; Lindmark v. Hodgkinson, 31 App. D. C. 612.

Affirmed.

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

SMYTH, Chief Justice.

This in an interference proceeding in which priority was awarded by the Commissioner of Patents to the senior party. The invention relates to railway signal torpedoes and the controversy turns on a question of fact. Each of the tribunals of the Patent Office decided in favor of Jackson. We have examined the record and are unable to say that they were clearly wrong. In view of this, the decision of the Commissioner must be, and it is, affirmed. In re Barratt, 11 App. D. C. 177; Creveling v. Jepson, 47 App. D. C. 597; Reid et al. v. Kitselman (D. C.) 266 Fed. 255 ; Lindmark v. Hodgkinson, 31 App. D. C. 612.

Affirmed.

Dutcher v. Jackson, 269 F. 688, 50 App. D.C. 172, 1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 2329 (D.C. Cir. 1921).

Pincite

269 F. 688 (Dutcher v. Jackson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related