Howard Earl HOOVER, Appellant, v. James B. KIRBY and Daniel B. REPLOGLE, Appellees

4 F.2d 287·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia·1925

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and BARBER, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

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

Howard Earl HOOVER, Appellant, v. James B. KIRBY and Daniel B. REPLOGLE, Appellees. (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia. Submitted January 15, 1925. Decided February 2, 1925.) No. 1712. Donald M. Carter, of Chicago, 111., and J. S. Barker, of Washington, D. C., for appellant. D. B. Replogle, of Berkeley, Cal., for appellees. Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and BARBER, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals. [MAJORITY — ROBB, Associate Justice.] ROBB, Associate Justice. This interference involves substantially the same question determined in the preceding interference, No. 1711, 4 F.(2d) 287, just decided, and was so considered by the Patent Office. For the reasons stated in the other decision, we affirm the decision here. Affirmed. Petition for rehearing denied February 21,1925.