Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Frederick A. STEVENS, Appellant, v. Stephen J. CLULEE, Appellee, 1925 — 3 F.2d 1018 · caselaw · US
IP
Frederick A. STEVENS, Appellant, v. Stephen J. CLULEE, Appellee
3 F.2d 1018·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1925
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Frederick A. STEVENS, Appellant, v. Stephen J. CLULEE, Appellee.
(Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Submitted January 13, 1925.
Decided March 2, 1925.)
No. 1696.
David Rines, of Boston, Mass., for appellant.
R. S. Blair, of New York City, J. H. Kilcoyne, of Washington, D. C., and H. G. Manning, of Waterbury, Conn., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appeal from concurrent decisions of the Patent Office in an interference proceeding, in which priority was awarded" the party Clulee. The invention relates to a mounting for eyeglasses, and is set forth in a single broad count, originating with Stevens. The right of Clulee to make the claim was challenged, but the Law Examiner sustained that right, basing his decision upon the failure of Stevens to specify in the claim the limitations contended for in his motion for dissolution. Each of the three tribunals of the Patent Office has exhaustively and satisfactorily discussed the questions involved, and each has reached the conclusion that Clulee is entitled to make the claim, and is, in fact, the prior inventor. Finding no error, we affirm the decision appealed from. Affirmed.