Kreag v. Geen
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
HEARING on an appeal from a decision of tbe Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding. Tbe Court in tbe opinion stated tbe facts as follows: Tbe subject-matter of invention in this case is an improvement in brushes used for polishing shoes.
Read the full summary
HEARING on an appeal from a decision of tbe Commissioner of Patents in an interference proceeding. Tbe Court in tbe opinion stated tbe facts as follows: Tbe subject-matter of invention in this case is an improvement in brushes used for polishing shoes. William A. Geen, tbe appellee, bolds a patent for tbe invention issued October 4, 1904, upon an application filed December 3, 1903. John Adam Kreag, tbe appellant, filed an application making the same claims on November 25, 1904. An interference was declared between tbe two, with issue defined as follows: 1. In a brush, a back, a felt pad, and…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice SieepaRD
The decision that the issue is a patentable one, having been made in the Ofñce and a patent issued thereon to Geen, although it is confessed by the Examiner of Interferences that “the invention is an exceedingly limited one,” is binding upon us on dhis appeal. Assuming, as we must, for the.purposes of this *439case, that tlie original conclusion arrived at, it appears, witb considerable difficulty in the Office in passing Green’s application to patent, was a sound one, tbe single question for our determination is the disputed claim of priority between the patentee and the later applicant.
The…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Owens v. SponableCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1934