¶1Patents ©=>112(4) — Patent Office decision, awarding priority to junior claimant of complicated invention, should not be disturbed, unless clearly erroneous.
¶2Where invention is of complicated character, Patent Office’s decision, awarding priority to junior party, should not be disturbed, unless error clearly appears.
¶3Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
¶4Interference proceeding between Lotus John Steele and others and Lewis W. Chubb. From decisions of Patent Office tribunals, awarding priority to Chubb, the other parties appeal.
¶5Affirmed.
¶6Robert Watson, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
¶7*469W. G. Carr and O. B. Buchanan, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
¶8Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
¶10Appeal froln concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tribunals in an interference proceeding, awarding priority as to the three claims to the junior party, Chubb.
¶11The issue relates to a method of electrically welding metallic parts by moving one of such parts with respect to and into contact with the other through the path of the electric are formed between them. The are is maintained “automatically” (count 3), “under electric control” (count 4), and “automatically controlled” (count 8), for a determined period.
¶12The invention is of a complicated character, and the decision of the Patent Office ought not to be disturbed unless error is clearly made to appear. We have examined the record and the briefs of counsel. Being convinced of the correctness of the conclusion reached, we affirm the decision.
¶13Affirmed.