Steele v. Chubb

D.C. Circuit

Steele v. Chubb

24 F.2d 468, 58 App. D.C. 26, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2078

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 6, 1928

DocketNo. 2031

StatusPublished

This text of 24 F.2d 468 (Steele v. Chubb) 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

Steele v. Chubb, 24 F.2d 468, 58 App. D.C. 26, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2078 (D.C. Cir. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal froln concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tribunals in an interference proceeding, awarding priority as to the three claims to the junior party, Chubb.

The issue relates to a method of electrically welding metallic parts by moving one of such parts with respect to and into contact with the other through the path of the electric are formed between them. The are is maintained “automatically” (count 3), “under electric control” (count 4), and “automatically controlled” (count 8), for a determined period.

The invention is of a complicated character, and the decision of the Patent Office ought not to be disturbed unless error is clearly made to appear. We have examined the record and the briefs of counsel. Being convinced of the correctness of the conclusion reached, we affirm the decision.

Affirmed.

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

ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal froln concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tribunals in an interference proceeding, awarding priority as to the three claims to the junior party, Chubb.

The issue relates to a method of electrically welding metallic parts by moving one of such parts with respect to and into contact with the other through the path of the electric are formed between them. The are is maintained “automatically” (count 3), “under electric control” (count 4), and “automatically controlled” (count 8), for a determined period.

The invention is of a complicated character, and the decision of the Patent Office ought not to be disturbed unless error is clearly made to appear. We have examined the record and the briefs of counsel. Being convinced of the correctness of the conclusion reached, we affirm the decision.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 F.2d 468, 58 App. D.C. 26, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steele-v-chubb-cadc-1928.