
    COLLIS v. QUENZER.
    Patents; Interference; Abandoned Experiment.
    Where one of the parties to an interference involving an improved ankle supporter, who claimed to have first conceived and reduced to practice, locked up the original patterns and sample, claimed to show reduction to practice, in a desk, and did not begin to manufacture and sell for more than two years thereafter, and in the meantime patented and manufactured another kind of supporter, it was held that what he did amounted to nothing more than an abandoned experiment, and priority was awarded to the other party, who commenced to manufacture and sell more than a year before his rival did so.
    No. 743.
    Patent Appeals.
    Submitted March 11, 1912.
    Decided April 1, 1912.
    Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an interference case.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. John Iioed Liitell and Mr. Julian C. Dowell for the appellant.
    
      Mr. 'Eugene O. Broion for the appellee.
   Mr. Chief Justice Siiepaed

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an interference case involving priority of invention of an improved ankle supporter.

The several tribunals of the Patent Office concurred in the award of priority to Quenzer.

Collis was the first to conceive the invention. He claimed to have reduced it to practice in December, 1906, immediately after conception. The original patterns and tbe sample were locked np in a drawer of a private desk, and tbe manufacture and sale was not begun until February, 1909. Quenzer conceived tbe invention in October, 1907, and commenced manufacture and sale to tbe trade in November, 1907.

Tbe Commissioner beld tbat tbe proof of Collis did not show reduction to practice as alleged; tbat bis secretion of tbe invention, and tbe patenting and manufacture of another kind of supporter, indicated tbat tbe making and test of tbe supporter of tbe issue amounted to nothing more than an abandoned experiment. He further beld tbat even if reduced to practice, Collis bad lost bis right to tbe invention by bis concealment of tbe same. An examination of tbe evidence fails to convince us tbat there was error in tbe conclusion on tbe first point. It is therefore unnecessary to consider tbe second one.

Tbe decision will be affirmed. It is so ordered, and that this decision be certified to tbe Commissioner of Patents.

Affirmed.  