¶1Patents (3) — Concurrent decision of Patent Office tribunals affirmed, unless palpably wrong.
¶2Where the question involved in interference proceedings is one of fact, as to which of the three tribunals of the Patent Office concurred, the decision of the Commissioner will be affirmed, unless the record reveals palpable error.
¶3i@3»Por other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numhered Digests & Indexes
¶4Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
¶5Interference proceedings between Joseph A. Anglada, ■ Fredellia H. Moyer, Dallas C. Carroll, and Richard S. Bryant. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, awarding priority to Moyer, Anglada and Bryant separately appeal.
¶6Affirmed.
¶7In Case No. 1409:
¶8Arthur W. Nelson, of Chicago, 111., for appellant.
¶9Charles S. Grindle and James A. Watson, both of Washington, D. C., and Bert M. Kent, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellees.
¶10In Case No. 1410:
¶11Bert M. Kent, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
¶12Charles S. Grindle and James A. Watson, both of Washington, D. C., and Arthur W. Nelson, of Chicago, 111., for appellees.
¶14These appeals are from a decision of the Patent Office in an interference case relating to a locking device for *360a demountable tire rim for automobiles. There are four interferants. Moyer was successful before each of the three tribunals of the Office. Anglada and Bryant appeal — Anglada against Moyer, Carroll, and Bryant; and Bryant against Carroll, Anglada, and Moyer.
¶15The question involved is one of fact, and a careful study of the record fails to reveal palpable error on the part of the Commissioner. Therefore, following the rule announced in Valerius et al. v. Pfouts, 50 App. D. C. 394, 273 Fed. 358, this day decided, his decision in awarding priority to Moyer is affirmed.
¶16Affirmed.
¶17Mr.-Justice HITZ, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sat in the place of Mr. Justice ROBB in the hearing and determination of this appeal.