Rimailho v. Holt

D.C. Circuit

Rimailho v. Holt

8 F.2d 1015, 56 App. D.C. 399, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3438

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1925

DocketPatent Appeal No. 1721

StatusPublished

This text of 8 F.2d 1015 (Rimailho v. Holt) 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

Rimailho v. Holt, 8 F.2d 1015, 56 App. D.C. 399, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3438 (D.C. Cir. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office in an interference proceeding, awarding priority of invention to the party Holt.

The invention covers means for supporting heavy artillery, and involves a construction in which the gun-supporting frame has its ends carried by independently driven tractors of the caterpillar type. ]n the Patent Office the issue largely turned upon the question of Holt’s diligence; Rimailho not having taken any testimony. The evidence has been fully and carefully reviewed by the tribunals of the Office, and we agree with the conclusion reached that Holt, m view of the circumstances surrounding him, his conduct after conception, and the character of the invention, was reasonably diligent. 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.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office in an interference proceeding, awarding priority of invention to the party Holt.

The invention covers means for supporting heavy artillery, and involves a construction in which the gun-supporting frame has its ends carried by independently driven tractors of the caterpillar type. ]n the Patent Office the issue largely turned upon the question of Holt’s diligence; Rimailho not having taken any testimony. The evidence has been fully and carefully reviewed by the tribunals of the Office, and we agree with the conclusion reached that Holt, m view of the circumstances surrounding him, his conduct after conception, and the character of the invention, was reasonably diligent. The decision therefore is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 F.2d 1015, 56 App. D.C. 399, 1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rimailho-v-holt-cadc-1925.