Duemler v. McCabe

Customs and Patent Appeals

Duemler v. McCabe

69 F.2d 1003

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Duemler v. McCabe. Read the opinion of the Court — 67 F.2d 911 →

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals·Decided March 19, 1934·No. No. 3167·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A petition for rehearing has been filed heroin in which it is alleged that certain misstatements of fact were made in our opinion filed December 30, 1933. While it appears, on re-examination of the matter, that certain inaccuracies of expression occur therein, these do not in any way affect the merits, or the correctness of the conclusion originally reached by us. Tbe petition for rehearing is therefore denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

A petition for rehearing has been filed heroin in which it is alleged that certain misstatements of fact were made in our opinion filed December 30, 1933. While it appears, on re-examination of the matter, that certain inaccuracies of expression occur therein, these do not in any way affect the merits, or the correctness of the conclusion originally reached by us. Tbe petition for rehearing is therefore denied.

Duemler v. McCabe, 69 F.2d 1003 (ccpa 1934).

Pincite

69 F.2d 1003 (Duemler v. McCabe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.