ANDERSON v. SYMONS

ANDERSON v. SYMONS. (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia. Submitted May 11, 1922. Decided June 5, 1922.) No. 1497. Patents <§=>91(4)—Evidence held to show reduction to practice by senior party before junior entered the field. In interference proceedings relating to improvements in stone and ore crushers of the disc type, held, that the senior party, who conceived the invention four years before the junior party, had actually reduced the invention to practice before the conception by the junior party, so that he was not chargeable with want of diligence, which prevented his making the claim. <§=>For oilier cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes Appeal from the Commissioner óf Patents, Interference proceeding between Harvey S. Anderson and Edgar B. Symons. From a decision of the Patent Office, awarding priority to Symons, Anderson appeals. 'Affirmed. William L. Symons, of Washington, D. C., for appellant. John S. Barker, of Washington, D. C., and Francis W. Parker, Jr., of Chicago, 111., for appellee. [MAJORITY — ROBB, Associate Justice.] ROBB, Associate Justice. Appeal from a decision of the Patent Office in an interference proceeding awarding priority to the party Symons. The invention relates to improvements in stone and ore crushers of the disc type, and particularly covers means for the adjustment of the opposed discs.' . The Examiner of Interferences found that Anderson had established conception about July of 1915, and Symons in July of 1911, but that Symons had not reduced the invention to practice, and was lacking in diligence at the time of Anderson’s entry into the field. The Examiners in Chief accepted the Examiner’s finding as to tire dates of conception by the respective parties, but found that Symons actually reduced the invention to practice prior to Anderson’s conception. The Assistant Commissioner, again reviewing the evidence, agreed with the Examiners in Chief, and therefore affirmed the decision. We regard the question as so free from doubt as to warrant our affirmance of the decision without further discussion of the evidence. The decision is affirmed. Affirmed. Mr. Justice HITZ, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sitting in the place of Mr. Justice VAN ORSDEL in the hearing and determination of this appeal, concurs.