Ruth v. Groch

D.C. Circuit

Ruth v. Groch

277 F. 861, 51 App. D.C. 226, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2803

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 3, 1922

DocketNos. 1455, 1456

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 277 F. 861 (Ruth v. Groch) 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

Ruth v. Groch, 277 F. 861, 51 App. D.C. 226, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2803 (D.C. Cir. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

SMYTH, Chief Justice.

These are interference proceedings which were submitted together and will be disposed of in one opinion. The first relates to flotation apparatus for concentrating ores, wherein the metallic values are caused to be separated and independently removed from the gangue way by the selective action of froth-producing agencies, and the second, to a gas-diffusing device for flotation apparatus. By stipulation the same testimony has been used in both cases.

The first interference is expressed in four counts, and the second in five. In each case the three tribunals of the Patent Office united in awarding priority to Groch. The tribunals in their opinions analyzed the testimony carefully, and made it very clear that the conclusion reached is correct. Certainly we cannot say that it is palpably wrong, and hence we sustain it. Maremont v. Olson, 49 App. D. C. 369, 265 Fed. 1009; Kitselman v. Reid, 49 App. D. C. 378, 266 Fed. 256; Ball v. Barnhurst, 50 App. D. C. 257, 270 Fed. 693; Massey v. Ridge, 50 App. D. C. 271, 270 Fed. 879.

The decision of the commissioner is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SMYTH, Chief Justice.

These are interference proceedings which were submitted together and will be disposed of in one opinion. The first relates to flotation apparatus for concentrating ores, wherein the metallic values are caused to be separated and independently removed from the gangue way by the selective action of froth-producing agencies, and the second, to a gas-diffusing device for flotation apparatus. By stipulation the same testimony has been used in both cases.

The first interference is expressed in four counts, and the second in five. In each case the three tribunals of the Patent Office united in awarding priority to Groch. The tribunals in their opinions analyzed the testimony carefully, and made it very clear that the conclusion reached is correct. Certainly we cannot say that it is palpably wrong, and hence we sustain it. Maremont v. Olson, 49 App. D. C. 369, 265 Fed. 1009; Kitselman v. Reid, 49 App. D. C. 378, 266 Fed. 256; Ball v. Barnhurst, 50 App. D. C. 257, 270 Fed. 693; Massey v. Ridge, 50 App. D. C. 271, 270 Fed. 879.

The decision of the commissioner is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 F. 861, 51 App. D.C. 226, 1922 U.S. App. LEXIS 2803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruth-v-groch-cadc-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack