McCullough
McCullough v. Kammerer Corp.
143 F.2d 595·61 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 544·1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3140
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 1, 1944No. 9957California49 words
Lead Opinion
In his petition for rehearing appellant has cited Kellogg No. 657,777, Hill No. 1,338,773, and Segelhorst No. 1,599,067 and No. 1,767,018 as being demonstrative of anticipation of Reilly-Stone No. 1,625,391. We do not find in these patents such anticipation.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
MATHEWS, Circuit Judge dissents.