
    WAHL v. WRIGHT.
    (Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
    Submitted May 9, 1921.
    Decided June 6, 1921.)
    No. 1394.
    1. Patents «3=113(7) — Decision of Patent Office not reverse®, unless error clearly appears.
    Where the claims of interference relate to a complicated mechanism, error must elearly appear to warrant a reversal of the decision of the Patent Office.
    2. Patents <§=106 (2) — Limitation of counts, so as not to rea® on prior application, is reasonable.
    Where the counts in interference called for a follower whose position is determined by the level of the cam tracks, and a construction of those counts liberal enough to read on the disclosure of one of the applicants, who had two followers, would also read on a prior application of the other applicant, the limitation of the counts to exclude such construction is not arbitrary, and the decision of the Patent Office in making such limitation is not clearly wrong.
    
      ig^oFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    
      Appeal from the Commissioner of Patents.
    Interference proceedings between John C. Wahl and Walter Wright. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents awarding priority as to one count to Wahl and as to the other three counts to Wright, Wahl appeals.
    Affirmed.
    See, also, 50 App. D. C. 391, 273 Fed. 355.
    Joseph H. Miians and Calvin T. Milans, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
    Barnham C. Stickney and William I,. Morris, both of New York City, for appellee.
   ROBB, Associate Justice.

Appeal from a decision of the Patent-Office in an interference proceeding awarding priority of invention to the junior party, Wright.

The invention is based upon practically the same structure as was involved in the prior interference, No. 1346, but is narrower in scope. It originally contained four counts. The Examiner of Interferences, being of the view that the question as to Wahl’s right to tnake the claims had been foreclosed by a prior decision of the Examiners in Chief, awarded priority to him without considering that question. The Examiners in Chief found that this was a misconception of their former decision, and, considering the question de novo, ruled that Wahl was not entitled to make the claims. They therefore awarded priority to Wright. The Commissioner sustained the Board, except as to count 3, and accordingly awarded priority as to that count to Wahl, and priority as to counts 1, 2 and 4 to Wright.

These claims relate to a complicated mechanism, and under our rule error must clearly appear to warrant a reversal of the Patent Office. The counts call for a follower whose position is posi tively determined by the level of the cam tracks. Wahl has two followers, and the Commissioner points out that, if the claims he so liberally construed as to read on his disclosure, a similar liberal construction would read on a prior application of Wright. We cannot say, therefore, that the limitation is an arbitrary one, and, not being clearly convinced that the Patent Office has erred, we affirm the decision.

Affirmed.  