In re PLUMLY

In re PLUMLY. (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia. Submitted January 9, 1922. Decided June 5, 1922.) No. 1459. Patents 1—Application for patent for paper pill box machine denied on ground of public use. Evidence that the applicant for a patent fdr a machine for making paper pill boxes had operated his machine for at least 12 years before he applied for the patent, that his operatives were under no injunction of secrecy, and that conditions surrounding the operation were such that knowledge of the invention must have become common, sustains the decision of the Patent Office, rejecting the application on the ground of public use for more than 2 years prior to the filing thereof. <£s»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents. In the matter of the application of Eugene K. Plumly for a patent. From a decision of the Patent Office, refusing to allow the claims, applicant appeals. Affirmed. E. H. Fairbanks, of Philadelphia, Pa., for applicant. T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents. [MAJORITY — ROBB, Associate Justice.] ROBB, Associate Justice. Appeal from á decision of the Patent Office, refusing to allow the claims of appellant’s application on the ground of public use for more than 2 years prior to the filing of the application. The invention covers a machine for making paper pill boxes, ¿nd, as stated by the tribunals of the Patent Office, is quite easily understood by ony one at all familiar with mechanics or the operation of such machines. This application was in interference with an application of James W. Hughes, and that interference resulted in the rejection of the claims of both parties on the ground of public use. The evidence very clearly shows that Mr. Plumly, the appellant, operated his machine for at least 12 years before he applied for a patent, that his operatives were under no injunction of secrecy, and that conditions surrounding the operation were such that knowledge of the invention must have become common. The tribunals of the Patent Office have reviewed this evidence, and we adopt their reasoning and conclusion. See Andrews v. Hovey, 123 U. S. 267, 8 Sup. Ct. 101, 31 L. Ed. 160; Id., 124 U. S. 694, 8 Sup. Ct. 676, 31 L. Ed. 557. The decision is affirmed. Affirmed.