Gold v. Gold
| Decision Date | 03 October 1916 |
| Docket Number | 2323. |
| Citation | 237 F. 84 |
| Parties | GOLD et al. v. GOLD. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Otto R Barnett, of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Arthur C. Fraser and William A. Redding, both of New York City, for appellee.
Before KOHLSAAT, MACK, and ALSCHULER, Circuit Judges.
Appellee brought suit under R.S. Sec. 4915 (Comp. St. 1913, Sec 9460), to obtain letters patent. The invention is for an improvement upon the 'Sewall' or straight port coupler for connecting the lengths of rubber hose for steam-heating pipes of railway cars, so that, while not preventing their unlocking when the cars separate, it shall prevent accidental uncoupling. A lock thus affording sufficient resistance to prevent accidental uncoupling is called an impositive lock.
The District Court not only granted the prayer of the bill, but it also declared appellant Gold's patent as to the five claims in question void. Furthermore, it annulled his patent in respect to three other claims, as to which priority had been granted him in the Patent Office, by an order which because unappealed, made this matter res adjudicata as between the parties thereto.
Appellant Gold was the senior applicant. He filed in April, 1902; appellee, in June, 1903. Before interference proceedings were begun, certain of this appellant's claims not involved in the interference, and which had been rejected on the ground that his application afforded no basis for claiming an impositive lock, were allowed on ex parte appeal; one examiner in chief dissenting. Subsequently, after he had had access to appellee's files through an interference proceeding, and had added the new claims, the interference proceedings, which resulted in the decree herein attacked, were instituted as to these eight claims. Appellee then moved to dissolve the interference, on the ground that appellant Gold's application did not cover the invention of these claims. This motion was denied by the examiner, and on appeal the examiners in chief left the question open to be determined on the evidence at the final hearing.
On final hearing of the interference, the examiner awarded priority to appellant Gold on three claims, but to appellee on the five claims here in issue. The decision, however, turned on another point than that of the scope of the application. On appeal, the majority of the examiners in chief held that appellant Gold had no right to claim the impositive lock under his original application, and for that reason affirmed as to the five claims. For the same reason, the Commissioner of Patents again affirmed their decision. In each instance, appellant was awarded priority as to the three other claims. As to these three, no further appeal was taken, but on appeal as to the five claims the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia reversed the Commissioner.
These claims were held to be covered by the application and priority was awarded to appellant Gold. 34 App.D.C. 229. Thereupon letters patent No. 948,667 were granted to him on February 8, 1910. But for section 4915, this determination would be res adjudicata. Under this act, however, the losing party may renew the contest and endeavor to establish his right to a patent de novo. If, in addition to the evidence presented in the interference proceedings, new and additional evidence be given in court, due weight must be accorded thereto. But we cannot assent to appellants' argument that, if the evidence in court and in the interference proceedings is identical, the decision in Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U.S. 120, 14 Sup.Ct. 772, 38 L.Ed. 657, makes the final decision in the interference proceedings conclusive, and requires a dismissal of the bill without any consideration of the evidence; for, though some of the statements in the opinion may support this view, the action of the court in this and in subsequent cases in discussing the evidence negatives such an interpretation of the duty of the court.
The final decision in the interference proceedings, while not conclusive, is nevertheless of the utmost importance. The Court of Appeals acts therein as the highest patent tribunal like the Patent Office officials, its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corporation v. Coe
...v. Radio Engineering Laboratories, Inc., 293 U.S. 1, 55 S.Ct. 928, 79 L. Ed. 163; Bayer v. Rice, 64 App.D.C. 107, 75 F.2d 238; Gold v. Gold, 7 Cir., 237 F. 84; Larson v. Crowther, 8 Cir., 26 F.2d 780, certiorari denied 278 U.S. 648, 49 S.Ct. 83, 73 L.Ed. 560; Dowling v. Jones, 2 Cir., 67 F.......
-
Radtke Patents Corporation v. Coe
...Aeroplane & Motor Corp. v. Janin, 2 Cir., 278 F. 454; Root Spring Scraper Co. v. Willett Mfg. Co., 6 Cir., 84 F.2d 42. See Gold v. Gold, 7 Cir., 237 F. 84, 86-87; International Signal Co. v. Vreeland Apparatus Co., Inc., 2 Cir., 278 F. 468, 470; Magic City Kennel Club, Inc. v. Smith, 10 Cir......
-
Uihlein v. General Electric Co.
...cite in addition to Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U. S. 120, 14 S. Ct. 772, 38 L. Ed. 657, discussed in the original opinion, the case of Gold v. Gold, 237 F. 84, 86, a case decided by this Referring to the quantum of proof necessary to justify a setting aside of the decision of the Court of Appea......
-
Victor Talking Mach. Co. v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.
... ... Jones on Evidence, Sec. 594; Bernardin v. Northall ... (C.C.) 77 F. 849; Gold v. Gold, 237 F. 84, 150 ... C.C.A. 286; Scott v. Laas, 150 F. 764, 766, 30 ... C.C.A. 500 ... In view ... of Johnson v. Mueser, ... ...