UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

Where certain claims of a patent called for a "pocket" or housing, without indicating whether it must be integral or might also be made in two or more parts to be assembled, held that the latter interpretation was the correct one in view of another claim calling for the integral form distinctly and a provision of the specifications saying "the pocket may be cast in a single piece." P. 250 U. S. 385.

As between two patentees, he of the prior application and patent is presumptively the prior inventor. Id.

Oral testimony tending to show prior invention as against an existing patent is, in the absence of models, drawings, or kindred evidence, open to grave suspicion, particularly if taken long after the time of alleged invention. P. 250 U. S. 386.

A mental conception in process of development, occasionally outlined clubjuris

Page 250 U. S. 384

on scraps of paper, subsequently discarded, and roughly worked into a small wooden model with a pen-knife, held not to amount to invention. P. 250 U. S. 386.

230 F.8d 1, 234 id. 343, affirmed. 229 F.7d 0, reversed.

The cases are stated in the opinion.