Robbins v. Steinbart
Decision Date | 04 April 1932 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeal No. 2932. |
Citation | 57 F.2d 378,19 CCPA 1069 |
Parties | ROBBINS v. STEINBART. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
H. A. Toulmin and H. A. Toulmin, Jr., both of Dayton, Ohio, for appellant.
Paul A. Staley, of Springfield, Ohio, and Marston Allen, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee.
Before GRAHAM, Presiding Judge, and BLAND, HATFIELD, GARRETT, and LENROOT, Associate Judges.
In this appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office, in an interference proceeding, the invention relates to machines for making steel wool, and the issue is confined to two counts, as follows:
The counts were claims 17 and 57 of the Robbins patent, No. 1,584,145, issued May 11, 1926 (application filed October 14, 1924). Steinbart's application was filed on November 27, 1923. After the issuance of Robbins' patent, Steinbart copied the two claims at issue for the purpose of interference. Robbins' preliminary statement alleged conception in January, 1921, the embodiment of the invention in a full-sized machine on the 12th day of May, 1924, and successful operation of said machine in June, 1924. Steinbart's preliminary statement alleged conception and drawings January, 1922, and "that he first embodied his present invention in a full sized machine which was completed on or about the first day of October, 1924," which was successfully operated on about said last named date. It will be noticed that Steinbart claimed a date for actual reduction to practice later than his constructive date which was the date of filing the application on November 27, 1923. After seeing the filing date of Robbins, Steinbart moved to amend his preliminary statement and sought to change his date for the first actual reduction to practice from October 1, 1924, to April 30, 1924, which motion was denied by the Examiner of Interferences.
Robbins moved to dissolve the interference for the reason that the counts could not be read upon the machine shown and described in Steinbart's application and for the further reason that Steinbart's application showed and described an inoperative device and one lacking utility. The Law Examiner sustained the motion to dissolve upon the ground that Steinbart's machine was inoperative. Steinbart appealed to the Board of Appeals, which reversed the Law Examiner's decision. The board held that the machine as disclosed was prima facie operative and stated that, "It is believed the interference should be continued in order to give the parties opportunity, if they so desire, to present testimony on the question of operativeness."
In deciding the interference issue, the Examiner of Interferences accepted the ruling of the Board of Appeals as to Steinbart's right to make the counts as conclusive, since the new testimony taken did not warrant a different conclusion. He held as follows: "No ruling is made as to whether a knife resiliently pressed against the wires would be operable in the patent sense but even if such knife would be inoperable the skill of the art would have supplied an operable knife mounting and the resulting mechanism would have satisfied the counts of this interference."
He reviewed the evidence of both parties affecting their early conceptions and rejected all evidence of both parties as proving an earlier date of conception than the date of the filing of the Steinbart application, holding that Steinbart's application was a conception and reduction to practice of the counts in interference, and priority of invention of the counts was awarded to Steinbart.
Upon appeal to the Board of Appeals, it held, as did the Examiner of Interferences and the Law Examiner, that the counts read upon Steinbart's disclosure, and said:
Upon the question of inoperativeness of the Steinbart machine, the board said:
It also concluded that the testimony relating to Robbins' conception earlier than the filing date of Steinbart was not satisfactory and gave him no conception date earlier than Steinbart's application. It also rejected the Steinbart proof as establishing an earlier date of conception than his filing date. Having held that Steinbart could make the counts and that his device was operable as far as the issue of the involved counts was concerned, and having held that Steinbart was the first to conceive and reduce to practice the issues of the counts, it affirmed the action of the Examiner of Interferences in awarding priority to Steinbart. From this decision Robbins appeals here.
If our consideration of the sufficiency of Robbins' evidence to establish a conception by him earlier than Steinbart's filing date were an initial question with us, it is possible that we might have arrived at a conclusion differing from those of the two concurring...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Bertold J. Pembaur
-
Dickinson v. Zurko
...19 C.C.P.A. 766, 767-768, 53 F.2d 540, 541 (1931) In re Breer, 19 C.C.P.A. 929, 931, 55 F.2d 485, 486 (1932) Robbins v. Steinbart, 19 C.C.P.A. 1069, 1072, 57 F.2d 378, 379 (1932) Henry v. Harris, 19 C.C.P.A. 1092, 1096-1097, 56 F.2d 864, 866 (1932) Fageol v. Midboe, 19 C.C.P.A. 1117, 1122, ......
-
Dickinson v Zurko
...C. P. A. 766, 767 768, 53 F.2d 540, 541 (1931) In re Breer, 19 C. C. P. A. 929, 931, 55 F.2d 485, 486 (1932) Robbins v. Steinbart, 19 C. C. P. A. 1069, 1072, 57 F.2d 378, 379 (1932) Henry v. Harris, 19 C. C. P. A. 1092, 1096 1097, 56 F.2d 864, 866 (1932) Fageol v. Midboe, 19 C. C. P. A. 111......
-
Field v. Knowles
...Computing Scale Co., 6 Cir., 1912, 195 F. 508; Sun Ray Gas Corp. v. Bellows-Claude Neon Co., 6 Cir., 1931, 49 F.2d 886; Robbins v. Steinbart, 57 F.2d 378, 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1069; Trumbull et al. v. Kirschbraun, supra; Creed et al. v. Potts, 96 F.2d 317, 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1084. It is......