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.
William T. BEATTY, Appellant, v. Andrean G. RONNING and Adolph Ronning, Appellees, 1928 — 29 F.2d 1019 · caselaw · US
IP
William T. BEATTY, Appellant, v. Andrean G. RONNING and Adolph Ronning, Appellees
29 F.2d 1019·United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit·1928
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
William T. BEATTY, Appellant, v. Andrean G. RONNING and Adolph Ronning, Appellees.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Submitted November 13, 1928.
Decided December 3, 1928.
Patent Appeal No. 2080.
A. E. Carlsen, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Interference No. 52,654. Subject-Matter : Traction Implements.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — ROBB, Associate Justice.]
ROBB, Associate Justice.
Appeal from concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tribunals awarding 11 counts of the interference to the senior parties.
The invention relates to a road grading machine, called in common parlance a road scraper,-in which the front wheel of an ordinary tractor is removed and a frame connected thereto, extending out in front of the tractor, to which an adjustable grading blade is attached.
The Beatty application was filed on July 31, 1924, and a patent inadvertently issued thereon on May 12, 1925. The Ronning and Ronning application was filed March 12, 1921, or about three years and four months prior to the filing date of Beatty, whose preliminary statement disclosed a date of conception about a year and a half, subsequent to the filing date of the senior parties. Whereupon Beatty moved to1 dissolve the interference, contending that Ronning and Ronning had no right to make the claims and that their application does not disclose an operative machine.
The Law Examiner, the Examiners in ■Chief, and the Commissioner have in turn carefully and thoroughly considered every question raised by this appeal. After a review of their decisions, in the light of the oral argument and briefs filed by counsel, we have reached the conclusion that they were correct and that further discussion is unnecessary.
The decision is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.