Sutton v. Wentworth
Sutton v. Wentworth
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The several tribunals of the office have discussed the application of the doctrine of res judicata in opinions which indicate research and display strong reasoning’ power. The views of the Examiners in Chief, which sustain the contention of the appellants, have been presented with much ability. They leave nothing to be said xxpon that side. We are, however, not satisfied with their conclusion. The decision of the Commissioner is, in our opinion, sustained by our former decisions. See Blackford v. Wilder, 28 App. D. C. 535, 543; Horine v. Wende, 29 App. D. C. 415, 426; Carroll v. Hallwood, 31 App. D. C. 165; United States ex rel. Newcomb Motor Co. v. Moore, 30 App. D. C. 464. The principle of res judicata is fully disoxxssed in those cases in application to similar conditions, and its limitations pointed out.
There is no occasion to add anything to the discussion.
The decision is affirmed; and the clerk will certify this decision to the Commissioner of Patents as the law requires.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- SUTTON v. WENTWORTH
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Patents; Interference; Priority; Res Judicata. A judgment from which, no appeal was taken, awarding priority to one party in interference proceedings, upon the ground that the other had . no right to make the claim in issue, is res judicata upon the question of priority as between the applications, and therefore bars a further interference between the parties upon an issue which covers the common patentable subject-matter, and which was substantially suggested as being patentable by the Examiners in Chief in rendering judgment of priority in the first interference. (Citing Blackford, v. Wilder, 28 App. D. C. 535; Sorine v. Wende, 29 App. D. C. 415; United, States ex rel. Newoonib Motor Go. v. Moore, 30 App. D. C. 464, and Garroll v. Hailwood, 31 App. D. C. 165.)