
    DU RELL v. HALEY.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted May 11, 1920.
    Decided June 2, 1920.)
    No. 1310.
    Patents ‘S=590(5) — Failure to reduce to practice within two years shows lack of necessary diligence.
    "Wliere early efforts of one inventing a process and apparatus for concentration of ore did not amount to reduction to practice, and he did nothing thereafter for almost two years, and another entered the field meanwhile, he was lacking in diligence, and the second entering the field was entitled to an award of priority.
    
      (gxxsFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUHliEIt in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    
      Appeal from Commissioner of Patents.
    Interference proceeding between Charles Terry Du Rell and Dennis Frederick’Haley. From concurrent decisions of the Patent Office, the former appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Theo. K. Bryant, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
    Dean S. Edmonds and Pennie, Davis, Marvin & . Edmonds, all of New York City, for appellee.
   ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from concurrent decisions of the Patent Office tribunals in an interference proceeding, in which priority was awarded the junior party.

The invention involves a process and apparatus for concentration of ores. The claims are 12 in number, but it is unnecessary to repeat them here. Each of the Patent Office tribunals has held that appellant’s early efforts did not amount to reduction to practice, and that, as he did nothing thereafter for almost two years, and appellee entered the field meanwhile, he was lacking in diligence. Each of those tribunals has carefully and satisfactorily discussed the evidence in behalf of appellant, and for the reasons stated by them we affirm the decision from which this appeal was taken.

Affirmed.  