O'Connell v. Schmidt

Citations

• 27 App. D.C. 77
• 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 5138

Syllabus

<p>Patents; Interference; Findings of Fact by Patent Office; Reduction to Practice; Diligence; Dates.</p> <p>1. The rule that this court will not, except in extraordinary eases, disturb the findings of fact of the Patent Office, does not mean that the court is bound by the conclusions drawn from such facts, unless convinced that such conclusions are correct.</p> <p>2. Unless an invention belongs to that class of simple inventions which require no other proof of their practicability than the construction of a model, the mere construction of a model does not constitute a reduction to practice, even if such model is clearly sufficient to disclose the invention, and to enable those skilled in the art to understand it thoroughly.</p> <p>3. The inventor who is first to conceive and disclose is entitled to priority, provided he has used reasonable diligence in adapting and perfecting his invention, even though his adversary is the first to reduce to practice, actually or constructively.</p> <p>4. An inventor who is the first to conceive and disclose is under no obligation of diligence until just prior to the date when his rival enters the field.</p> <p>5. There is no general rule as to what constitutes due diligence in reducing to practice, that being a question to be determined by all the facts and surrounding circumstances in the particular case.</p> <p>6. The burden is upon the party questioning the correctness of the date-given as the date of the oath to an application for a patent.</p> <p>7. Where an inventor has conceived the idea, and has embodied it in models,, which, if tested, would amount to a reduction to practice, and has disclosed the invention to experts in the art, and, at the time his rival enters the field, is urging the acceptance of the invention in the trade; and where he files his application only six months later than his. rival, — he is exercising due diligence, and is entitled to priority.. (Distinguishing Watson v. Thomas, 23 App. D. C. 65.)</p> <