Ruppel v. Bogart

District of Columbia

Ruppel v. Bogart

265 F. 1023, 49 App. D.C. 402, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1587

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJune 2, 1919

DocketNo. 1228

StatusPublished

This text of 265 F. 1023 (Ruppel v. Bogart) 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

Ruppel v. Bogart, 265 F. 1023, 49 App. D.C. 402, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1587 (D.D.C. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal in an interference proceeding between the applications of appellant, Ruppel, filed March 10, 1915, and appellee, Bogart, filed September 3, 1915. It is unnecessary to set out the counts-of the issue. The invention relates to an improvement in expansion joints consisting of a casing secured to one section of pipe and a tubular member secured to the other section, in such manner that the one will slide within the other when the pipe contracts or expands. The junior party, Bogart, alleges, and has sustained by sufficient proof, conception and disclosure in August, 1913, and reduction to practice in November, 1914. The senior party, Ruppel, has taken no testimony. In a preliminary statement he referred to an earlier application upon which he relies for constructive reduction to practice. A petition by Bogart for access to the earlier application was allowed by the Commissioner. The tribunals of the Patent Office were unanimous in holding that the earlier application of Ruppel does not discose the invention here in issue, and that Ruppel must be held, for conception and constructive reduction to practice, to his filing date, March 10, 1915. This holding is fully supported by the record. The decision of tlie Commissioner of Patents is therefore affirmed. Affirmed.

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

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal in an interference proceeding between the applications of appellant, Ruppel, filed March 10, 1915, and appellee, Bogart, filed September 3, 1915. It is unnecessary to set out the counts-of the issue. The invention relates to an improvement in expansion joints consisting of a casing secured to one section of pipe and a tubular member secured to the other section, in such manner that the one will slide within the other when the pipe contracts or expands. The junior party, Bogart, alleges, and has sustained by sufficient proof, conception and disclosure in August, 1913, and reduction to practice in November, 1914. The senior party, Ruppel, has taken no testimony. In a preliminary statement he referred to an earlier application upon which he relies for constructive reduction to practice. A petition by Bogart for access to the earlier application was allowed by the Commissioner. The tribunals of the Patent Office were unanimous in holding that the earlier application of Ruppel does not discose the invention here in issue, and that Ruppel must be held, for conception and constructive reduction to practice, to his filing date, March 10, 1915. This holding is fully supported by the record. The decision of tlie Commissioner of Patents is therefore affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 F. 1023, 49 App. D.C. 402, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruppel-v-bogart-dcd-1919.