Warrington v. Combs

D.C. Circuit

Warrington v. Combs

41 App. D.C. 568, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2222

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 1914

DocketNos. 880, 881, and 882

StatusPublished

This text of 41 App. D.C. 568 (Warrington v. Combs) 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

Warrington v. Combs, 41 App. D.C. 568, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2222 (D.C. Cir. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Whether leave should have been granted Warrington to amend his preliminary statement was a matter within the sound discretion of the tribunals below. Considering all the circumstances, the delay in the matter, and the evidence relating to the mental condition of Warrington, that discretion seems to have been properly exercised; clearly there was no abuse of it.

The point in the controversy upon which the claim of Combs to priority chiefly turns is whether he actually reduced the invention to practice in his Exhibit X and Z machines. The Examiner of Interferences’ conclusion as to this was denied in turn by the Examiners in Chief and the Commissioner. The evidence on both sides has been reviewed in the several decisions quite fully, and the reasoning in support of the opposing view has been well presented. Our examination of the evidence on ail points convinces us that the Commissioner was right.

We think it unnecessary to again review the evidence.

The decision appealed from in each case will be affirmed. It is so ordered; and 'that this decision be certified to the Commissioner of Patents, as required by law'. Affirmed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Whether leave should have been granted Warrington to amend his preliminary statement was a matter within the sound discretion of the tribunals below. Considering all the circumstances, the delay in the matter, and the evidence relating to the mental condition of Warrington, that discretion seems to have been properly exercised; clearly there was no abuse of it.

The point in the controversy upon which the claim of Combs to priority chiefly turns is whether he actually reduced the invention to practice in his Exhibit X and Z machines. The Examiner of Interferences’ conclusion as to this was denied in turn by the Examiners in Chief and the Commissioner. The evidence on both sides has been reviewed in the several decisions quite fully, and the reasoning in support of the opposing view has been well presented. Our examination of the evidence on ail points convinces us that the Commissioner was right.

We think it unnecessary to again review the evidence.

The decision appealed from in each case will be affirmed. It is so ordered; and 'that this decision be certified to the Commissioner of Patents, as required by law'. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 App. D.C. 568, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warrington-v-combs-cadc-1914.