Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
George H. WIDNER, Appellant, v. Roy G. TELLIER and William Hoskins, Appellees
5 F.2d 1010·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
George H. WIDNER, Appellant, v. Roy G. TELLIER and William Hoskins, Appellees.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted May 12, 1925.
Decided June 1, 1925.)
Patent Appeal. No. 1741.
J. E. Stryker, of St. Paul, Minn., and A. V. Cush-man, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
J. H. Lee, of Chicago, Ill., R. F. Steward and N. J. Jewett, both of Washington, D. C., and J. Q. Rice and M. C. Massie, both of New York City, for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is one of the series of interferences mentioned in Prather, v. Tellier, appeal No. 1742, just decided, — App. D. C. —, 5 F.(2d) 1010, and was disposed of on the same testimony and with the same result below. As we have adopted the reasoning and conclusion of the Patent Office in appeal No. 1742, it follows that the decision here must also be affirmed. Affirmed.