Scannell v. Bethke

D.C. Circuit

Scannell v. Bethke

262 F. 1023, 49 App. D.C. 402, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1632

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 1920

DocketNo. 1277

StatusPublished

This text of 262 F. 1023 (Scannell v. Bethke) 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

Scannell v. Bethke, 262 F. 1023, 49 App. D.C. 402, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1632 (D.C. Cir. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an interference proceeding, which solely turns upon issues of fact. After a careful review of the testimony and the concurring decisions of the tribunals of the Patent Office, we are convinced that no error was committed. The testimony is fully and fairly reviewed in the decision of the Commissioner, and a further review here would serve no good purpose. The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, and the clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as required by law.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an interference proceeding, which solely turns upon issues of fact. After a careful review of the testimony and the concurring decisions of the tribunals of the Patent Office, we are convinced that no error was committed. The testimony is fully and fairly reviewed in the decision of the Commissioner, and a further review here would serve no good purpose. The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, and the clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as required by law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 F. 1023, 49 App. D.C. 402, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scannell-v-bethke-cadc-1920.