Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia (Volume 43)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1915. Excerpt: ... Syllabus. 43 App. of the Commissioner and Board of Examiners in Chief. Peirce, being a manufacturer of cable hangers, an inventor, and highly skilled in this art, was certainly in a position to understand and fully appreciate the value of a device like this, and it is inconceivable, if he did conceive it and embody his conception in concrete form (which, in this case, we apprehend would have constituted a reduction to practice), that he should have failed to include it in his earlier application. Therefore, without entering upon an analysis of the testimony, we affirm the decision of the Commissioner. The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed, and the clerk is directed to certify these proceedings as by law required. Affirmed. LUELLEN v. CLAESSEN. Patents; Interference: Burden Of Proof; Concealment And Si'PPRES.sioN Of Invention; Originality. 1. Where one of the parties to an interference was in possession of a regularly issued patent when the other party filed his application, the burden of proof is heavily upon the other party. 2. Where one of the parties to an interference reduced to practice nearly four years and a half before the other was granted a patent, and then filed his application, his rights are subordinated to those of such other party, because of his deliberate concealment and suppression of the invention, and the patentee is entitled to the award of priority. (Following Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D. C. 80; Matth.es v. Hurt, 24 App. D. C. 205; Howard v. Bowes. 31 App. D. C. 019, and Dieckmann v. Hmnv, 37 App. D. C. 399.) 3. One of the parties to an interference cannot defeat an award of prior ity to the other party by showing that the latter derived his invention from a third party. (Following Foster v. Antisdel, 14 App. D. C....