
    ANGLADA v. MOYER et al. BRYANT v. CARROLL et al.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted March 18, 1921.
    Decided May 2, 1921.)
    Nos. 1409, 1410.
    Patents (3) — Concurrent decision of Patent Office tribunals affirmed, unless palpably wrong.
    Where the question involved in interference proceedings is one of fact, as to which of the three tribunals of the Patent Office concurred, the decision of the Commissioner will be affirmed, unless the record reveals palpable error.
    i@3»Por other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numhered Digests & Indexes
    Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
    Interference proceedings between Joseph A. Anglada, ■ Fredellia H. Moyer, Dallas C. Carroll, and Richard S. Bryant. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, awarding priority to Moyer, Anglada and Bryant separately appeal.
    Affirmed.
    In Case No. 1409:
    Arthur W. Nelson, of Chicago, 111., for appellant.
    Charles S. Grindle and James A. Watson, both of Washington, D. C., and Bert M. Kent, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellees.
    In Case No. 1410:
    Bert M. Kent, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
    Charles S. Grindle and James A. Watson, both of Washington, D. C., and Arthur W. Nelson, of Chicago, 111., for appellees.
   SMYTH, Chief Justice,

These appeals are from a decision of the Patent Office in an interference case relating to a locking device for a demountable tire rim for automobiles. There are four interferants. Moyer was successful before each of the three tribunals of the Office. Anglada and Bryant appeal — Anglada against Moyer, Carroll, and Bryant; and Bryant against Carroll, Anglada, and Moyer.

The question involved is one of fact, and a careful study of the record fails to reveal palpable error on the part of the Commissioner. Therefore, following the rule announced in Valerius et al. v. Pfouts, 50 App. D. C. 394, 273 Fed. 358, this day decided, his decision in awarding priority to Moyer is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mr.-Justice HITZ, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, sat in the place of Mr. Justice ROBB in the hearing and determination of this appeal.  