273 F. 353 | D.D.C. | 1921
Appeal from the decision of the Commissioner of Patents, awarding priority of invention to appellee Gomber, the senior party. The issue is in the following count:
“A fly-killing device, comprising a handle and the flap on said handle, formed of a perforated sheet of soft, flexible non abrasive material.”
“It is always a suspicious circumstance in a case of interference that, after the claim of one of the parties has been fully disclosed and fixed as of a specified date, the other should then seek by amendment of his prelimi-. nary statement to show a date of invention different from that in the original statement and prior to, it and to the date of his opponent. Amendment upon so important a point should not be allowed in such a case, unless it is shown that the interests of justice plainly demand it; for upon the determination of these dates it depends, in the majority of cases, which party is entitled to the patent, and a change of memory is comparatively easy, when self-interest dictates a different date.” Parker v. Appert, 8 App. D. C. 270.
•The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Mr. 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.