Aluminum Stopper Co. of Baltimore City et al. Crown Cork & Seal Co. of Barr Car Co. v. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company 521 Beach. Hobbs et al. v.. 311 Blackledge v. Weir & Craig Manufacturing Company ... 379 Bronson Company et al. United States er rel. v. Duel!, Commissioner of 330 C. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company. Barr Car Co. v 521 Christensen r. Ellis..... 326 Cramer. Singer Manufacturing Company 492 Crown Cork & Seal Co. of Baltimore City r. Aluminum Stopper Co. of Baltimore City et al 450 Duell, Commissioner of Patents. United States of America er rel. Stapleton r. 359 E. Eastman v. Houston............ 386 Electric Porcelain and Manufacturing Company et al. R. Thomas & Sons 510 Elgin National Watch Company r. Illinois Watch Case Company, et al.. 273 326 Holzapfel's Compositions Company, Limited, . Rahtjen's American Compo sition Company Houston. Eastman r. Howard . Hey 424 375 311 353 478 500 386 375 I. Illinois Watch Case Company et al. Elgin National Watch Company v 273 344 J. John R. Williams Co. et al. v. Miller, Du Brul & Peters Mfg. Co..... Miller, Du Brul & Peters Mfg. Co. John R. Williams Co. et al v 517 Millett and Reed c. Duell, Commissioner of Patents..... Rahtjen's American Composition Company. Holzapfel's Compositions Company, Limited, v R. Thomas & Sons Company . Electric Porcelain and Manufacturing Company et al.... 510 500 396 Read. Miehle v.. 282 Reichenbach r. Kelley.... Stapleton. United States of America ex rel. v. Duell, Commissioner of Patents. 359 United States of America ex rel. The Bronson Company et al. v. Duell, Commissioner of Patents.... 330 United States of America ex rel. Stapleton ». Duell, Commissioner of Patents . 359 1. APPEAL to COMMISSIONER-Priority-RULE 116. There is no appeal directly to the Commissioner from the decision of the Examiner of Interferences awarding priority of invention in accordance with the provisions of Rule 116. 2. INTERFERENCE-PRIORITY-RULES 116 AND 119. When the date of hearing of an interference in which times for taking testimony have been set arrives and no testimony has been filed and no party to the interference appears, Held that it is not necessary that the motion under Rule 119 should be made before awarding priority, but that it becomes the duty of the Examiner of Interferences to render judgment of priority of invention in favor of the senior party, and that such an award is properly made under Rule 116. APPEAL from Examiner of Interferences. COMPUTING-SCALE. Application of Benjamin F. Brough filed February 10, 1898, No. 669,776. Application of Charles F. Snyder, administrator, filed July 16, 1897, No. 644,840. Mr. Arthur M. IIood for Brough. Mr. Ira C. Koehne for Snyder. DUELL, Commissioner: This is an appeal by Brough directly to the Commissioner from the decision of the Examiner of Interferences awarding priority of invention to Snyder in accordance with the provisions of Rule 116. I know of no authority for such an appeal, and it well might be dismissed without comment. In view of all the circumstances, however, it seems 3 |