Home/Ninth Circuit/McCullough v. Kammerer Corp.

McCullough v. Kammerer Corp.

143 F.2d 595, 61 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 544, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3140
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in McCullough v. Kammerer Corp.. Read the opinion of the Court — 138 F.2d 482 →
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 1, 1944·No. No. 9957·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

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

McCullough v. Kammerer Corp., 143 F.2d 595, 61 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 544, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 3140 (9th Cir. 1944).

143 F.2d 595 (McCullough v. Kammerer Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.