Of interferences. When an applicatiOn is filed which interferes with another pend ing application or with an unexpired pat ent, an investigation is ordered for the pur pose of determining who was the prior in ventor, and a patent is directed to be issued or not accordingly. When the controversy is between two applications a patent will be finally granted to him who is shown to be the first inventor, and will be denied to the other applicant so far as the point thus con troverted is concerned. But if the interfer ence is between an application and an actual patent, as there is no power in the patent office to cancel the existing patent, all that can be done is to grant or withhold from the applicant the patent he asks. If the patent is granted to him there will be two patents for the same thing. The two par ties will stand upon a footing of equality, and must settle their rights by a resort to the courts.
The parties to an interference are required to put their claims into proper shape, each, when proper, making the claims of the other, and the question of the patentability of the device for which the application is filed is then determined by the examiner. The is sues are then defined by the examiner and the parties notified. Each party is then re quired to file a concise written statement un der oath of the date of the conception of his invention, its reduction to practice, etc. If a party to an interference fail to file such a statement, he cannot show an earlier date for his invention than the date of his ap plication. The averments of fact in the preliminary statement are conclusive upon the party who files it. If, in an interference between two applications, the date fixed in the preliminary statement is not earlier than the date of filing the previous application, the priority is awarded to the earliest appli cation. Testimony is taken in contested cases and the question of priority passed upon. An appeal lies to the examiners-in chief and from them to the commissioner. Priority of inventive act consists in the prior conception of the idea of means and the prior embodiment of this idea in some prac tically operative art or instrument, or rea sonable diligence in perfecting such embodi ment, and must be established by a clear preponderance of evidence; Rob. Pat. § 600. Conception of the invention may be shown by verbal descriptions,'sketches, models, etc., but these have little weight in proving a reduction to practice. The testimony can not carry the date of conception back of the statement filed. An applicant can terminate interference proceedings by disclaiming the matter in contest, whereupon judgment goes against him on the interference. A judg ment in an interference has been held to be binding only on the parties to the record, and only in respect of further proceedings on the same question in the patent office, and not on the courts on the question of novelty or priority ; King v. Werner, 1 Bann. & A. 394, Fed. Cas. No. 7,809 ; though the courts will consider it on a motion for a prelim inary injunction against the defeated party ; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v, Collar & Cuff Co., 24 Fed. 275; but the supreme court has held that where the question decided in the pat ent office is one between contesting parties as to priority of invention, the decision there must be accepted as controlling upon that question of fact in any subsequent suit be tween the same parties, unless the contrary is established by testimony, which in char acter and amount carries thorough convic tion; Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U. S. 125, 14
Sup. Ct. 772, 38 L. Ed. 657. The opinion of the patent office on claims or earlier pat ents do not affect the applicant, except so far as they lead him to abandon or modify some of his claims ; Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. Lozier, 84 Fed. 659.
The question of interference is determined by the claims and not by the general ap pearance and functions of the machine shown, but not claimed ; Dederick v. Fox, 56 Fed. 714. A decision in an interference determines only the question of priority of invention between the parties, and the loser may still contend that there is no interfer ence in fact ; or that the successful party is not entitled to the claims made; Westing house v. Hien, Fed. 936, 87 C. C. A. 142, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 948.
An appeal lies from the Commissioner of Patents in an interference case to the court of appeals of the District of Columbia ; Act of Feb. 9, 1893.
Whenever there are interfering patents, any person interested in any one of such patents may have relief against the interfer ing patent by suit in equity against its own ers; the court may thereupon adjudge either patent void in whole or in part, etc., but such judgment shall affect none but parties to the suit and those deriving title under them sub sequently to the judgment.
Of the specification. The specification is required to describe the invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or sci ence to which it relates, to make, construct, or use it. In the trial of an action for in fringement, it is a question of fact for the jury whether this requirement has been com plied with. See Carver v. Mfg. Co., 2 Sto. 432, Fed. Cas. No. 2,485; Davoll v. Brown, 1 W. & M. 53, Fed. Cas. No. 3,662. At the same time, the interpretation of the specifi cation, and the ascertainment of the subject matter of the invention from the language of the specification and claims and from the drawings are a matter of law exclusively for the court ; Wood v. Underhill, 5 How. (U. S.) 1, 12 L. Ed. 23 ; Serrell v Collins, 4 Blatch. 61, Fed. Cas. No. 12,671. The specifi cation will be liberally construed by the court, in order to sustain the invention ; Stone v. Sprague, 1 Sto. 270, Fed. Cas. No. 13,487; Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. (U. S.) 341, 14 L. Ed. 717 ; Turrill v. R. Co., 1 Wall. (U. S.) 491, 17 L. Ed. 668; but it must, nev ertheless, identify with' reasonable clearness and accuracy the invention claimed, and de scribe the manner of its construction and use so that the public from the specification alone may be enabled to practise it; and if the court cannot satisfactorily ascertain the meaning of the patent from its face, it will be void for ambiguity ; Emerson v. Hogg, 2 Blatch. 1, Fed. Cas. No. 4,440; Barrett v. Hall, 1 Mas. 447, Fed. Cas. No. 1,047. It will be construed in view of the state of the art; Lawther v. Hamilton, 124 U. S. 1, 8 Sup. Ct. 342, 31 L. Ed. 325 ; Burt v. Evory, 133 U. S. 349, 10 Sup. Ct. 394, 33 L. Ed. 647. A specification in letters patent is sufficient ly clear and descriptive, when expressed in terms intelligible to a person skilled in the art to which it relates ; Sea bury v. Am Ende, 152 U. S. 561, 14 Sup. Ct. 683, 38 L. Ed. 553.