O'Reilly v. Smith

Citations

• 1 MacA. Pat. Cas. 218
• 18 F. Cas. 795

Syllabus

<p>Motion to extend'time — essentials thereto. — On a motion to extend the time of taking testimony in an interference proceeding in the Patent Office, the affidavits should state the names, competency, and materiality of the witnesses to bo examined.</p> <p>Sm — -decision op commissioner not Appbalable. — The decision of such a motion is wholly within the discretion of the Commissioner, and will not be reviewed upon appeal to the court.</p> <p>Evidence — testimony op party who has assigned his interest. — While the natural interest which an inventor may be supposed to retain in his 'invention,.after he has parted with all pecuniary interest in the same, will not render him an incompetent witness for his assignee in an interference with a rival inventor, the circumstance should be allowed due weight in considering the credit to be given to his testimony.</p> <p>Interference — bridge rails — difference of the devices. — Two inventions are not necessarily the same because they have a common purpose. So an interference held to have been improperly declared, it appearing that the common purpose of strengthening bridge rails at the joints was effected in one case by using a two-part rail and sliding the upper part upon the lower, the two parts thus reciprocally breaking joint and supporting each other throughout their length, while, in the other case, a short additional piece of splice-plate was fitted in a similar manner to and placed beneath the adjoining ends of the rails, which were otherwise unaltered, and extended a short distance only from the joint in either direction.</p>