
    BRENIZER v. ROBINSON.
    Patents; Interference; Burden of Proof; Reduction to Practice; Priority.
    A party in interference who filed his application after a patent was issued to the other party, has the burden of proving his case beyond a reasonable doubt, and will be denied priority where he fails to show reduction to practice antedating the other’s constructive reduction to practice.
    Patent Appeal
    No. 854.
    Submitted January 12, 1914.
    Decided March 2, 1914.
    Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in an, interference proceeding:
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      Tbe Court in the opinion stated the facts as follows:
    This is an interference proceeding relating to priority of invention of an improvement in vegetable-paring machines. Henry Kobinson has a patent for the invention issued December 14, 1909, on an application filed November 12, 1908. Orson W. Breniaer filed April 9, 1910.
    Former potato-paring machines consisted of a polygonal container with a rotatable bottom provided with an abrading surface. The rotation of the disc agitates the potatoes and causes them to roll over one another so that the skins coming in contact with the abrading surface are rubbed off. They are moved outwardly by centrifugal force, crowding up against the sides of the container so that those at the top are forced again towards the center and fall back upon the central part of the disc. By this circulation all portions of the skins are subjected to the operation of the abrading surfaces. By the rapid rotation of the abrading disc there is a tendency of the potatoes to circulate horizontally in the container without the desired vertical circulation. The improvement consists in a lug or projection secured to the wall of the container, which tends to prevent this horizontal circular motion by diverting the course of the potatoes and forcing those at the top towards the center so that they will circulate vertically. Claim 18 of Kobinson’s patent sets out the invention, and was copied in Brenizer’s application. It constitutes the issue of the interference, as follows:
    “In a machine of the character described, a container having a cylindrical wall provided with a scoop-shaped lug, in combination with a rotating abrading member, said lug overhanging the rotating abrading member.”
    Brenizer claims conception in the spring of 1906; disclosure and reduction to practice May 12, 1906.
    
      Mr. Ernest Howard Hunter and Mr. William Nevarra Gromwell for the appellants.
    
      Mr. H. 8. MacKaye and Mr. Ernest Wilkinson for the appellee.
   Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The patent to Robinson having been issued before the filing of Breniz,er’s application, the tribunals of the Patent Office correctly held that Brenizer had the burden of proving his case beyond a reasonable doubt.

They concurred in holding, upon the evidence, that Brenizer had failed to prove his alleged reduction to practice at any time prior to Robinson’s constructive reduction to practice.

It is unnecessary to spend time in another review of the evidence. It is sufficient to say that a careful consideration of it has failed to convince us of error.

The decision is therefore affirmed. The clerk will certify this decision to the Commissioner of Patents as the law requires.

Affirmed.  