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...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.