PAUL J. SIMMEN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK H. HOVEY AND THOMAS E. CLARK, APPELLEES

D.C. Cir. | 1925-12-07
No. Patent Appeal No. 1780
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
8 F.2d 1015 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (1925)
Opinion of the Court
ROBB, Associate Justice.

ROBB, Associate Justice.

This case is closely related to two preceding cases, Patent Appeals Nos. 1776 and 1777, -App. D. C.-, 8 F.(2d) 1014, which involved the same testimony and the same application of Clark and Hovey.

Simmen’s application was filed March 13, 1915, and, since he has taken no testimony, he is restricted to that date for conception and reduction to practice. The tribunals below have held that the testimony for Clark and Hovey established conception in the fall of 1914, which was followed by a diligent reduction to practice. For the reasons more fully stated in our opinion in Appeal No. 1777, we concur in the ruling here. The decision therefore is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw