Widner v. Tellier

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted May 12, 1925.

Decided June 1, 1925.)

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1925-06-01

4 counsel of record

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1925-06-01

¶1J. E. Stryker, of St. Paul, Minn., and A. V. Cush-man, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

¶2J. H. Lee, of Chicago, Ill., R. F. Steward and N. J. Jewett, both of Washington, D. C., and J. Q. Rice and M. C. Massie, both of New York City, for appellees.

¶3Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This is one of the series of interferences mentioned in Prather, v. Tellier, appeal No. 1742, just decided, — App. D. C. —, 5 F.(2d) 1010, and was disposed of on the same testimony and with the same result below. As we have adopted the reasoning and conclusion of the Patent Office in appeal No. 1742, it follows that the decision here must also be affirmed. Affirmed.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Court

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Judge

PER CURIAM.
By the court
Read opinion →

Counsel

J. E. Stryker, of St. Paul, Minn., and A. V. Cush-man, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

J. H. Lee, of Chicago, Ill., R. F. Steward and N. J. Jewett, both of Washington, D. C., and J. Q. Rice and M. C. Massie, both of New York City, for appellees.

J. E. Stryker, of St. Paul, Minn., and A. V. Cushman, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

J. H. Lee, of Chicago, Ill., R. F. Steward and N. J. Jewett, both of Washington, D. C., and J. Q. Rice and M. C. Massie, both of New York City, for appellee.