Joseph McKenna

“ Priority of invention is necessarily the essential thing, and to determine it, interference proceedings are provided. But are they considered as a matter of course on the mere assertion or appearance of a conflict? ”

“ It is he who is to cause the examination of an asserted invention or discovery and to judge of its utility and importance; [1] it is he who is to judge (be of opinion) whether an application will interfere with a pending one; [2] and it is he who, after an interference is declared and proceedings had, is the final arbiter of its only controversy, priority of invention. ”

“ A suit in equity may follow and be instituted by either party, and even in it nothing can be determined but priority of invention. 'There is but one issue of fact in an interference suit. That issue relates to the dates wherein the interfering matter was respectively invented by the interfering inventors. If the complainant's invention is the older, the defendant's interfering claim is void for want of novelty. And the complainant's interfering claim is void for want of novelty if the defendant's invention is found to antedate the other.' Walker, Patents, 3d ed. ”