Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Coe

100 F.2d 432, 69 App. D.C. 259, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 2676
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Coe. Read the opinion of the Court — 99 F.2d 986
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided August 15, 1938·No. No. 6941·Published

Opinion

MILLER, Associate Justice.

This is a companion case to Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Coe, 69 App.D.C. 256, 100 F.2d 429, No. 6940, decided this day. The application for reissue herein, involved claims for the waterproof sheet abrasive material itself — whereas the application in No. 6940 involved process claims. The decree of the lower court in this case must be affirmed for the reasons set forth in our opinion in No. 6940. Consequently, it is not necessary for us to consider the additional objections urged by the Commissioner against the claims here in issue, or the procedural questions presented by appellant in response thereto.

Affirmed.

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

Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 100 F.2d 432, 69 App. D.C. 259, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 2676 (D.C. Cir. 1938).

100 F.2d 432 (Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Coe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Coe
100 F.2d 429 (D.C. Circuit, 1938)