Kitselman v. Reid

266 F. 256, 49 App. D.C. 378, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1674
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMay 3, 1920
DocketNo. 1305
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 F. 256 (Kitselman v. Reid) 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
Kitselman v. Reid, 266 F. 256, 49 App. D.C. 378, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1674 (D.C. Cir. 1920).

Opinion

SMYTH, Chief Justice.

From a decision by the Commissioner of Patents, awarding priority to Reid, Reid & Kelley, the senior parties, in an interference, Kitselman appeals.

, The invention involved relates to double series machines Jor making two rolls of fence simultaneously. This appeal is a companion of the appeal in Nos. 1303 and 1304, 49 App. D. C. 377, 266 Fed. 255, in which the same parties are concerned, this day decided. The three tribunals of the Patent Office concur in awarding priority to Reid, Reid & Kelley. Where this is so, unless there is manifest error, the decision of the Commissioner should bé affirmed. Greenawalt v. Dwight, 49 App. D. C. 82, 258 Fed. 982, and cases therein cited; Hopkins v. Riegger, 49 App. D. C. 188, 262 Fed. 642; and Kennicott v. Caps, 49 App. D. C. 187, 262 Fed. 641. We find no such error in this case, and therefore the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Ruth v. Groch
277 F. 861 (D.C. Circuit, 1922)
Massey v. Ridge
270 F. 879 (D.C. Circuit, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 F. 256, 49 App. D.C. 378, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kitselman-v-reid-cadc-1920.