Legal Opinion
Mathieson Alkali Works, Inc. v. Coe
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided September 26, 1938No. 6999PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MILLER, Associate Justice.
This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a hill brought under the provisions of Section 4915, R.S., 35 U.S.C.A. § 63. The hill was based upon an application of Taylor and White which contained twenty-nine claims, all but six of which were withdrawn at the trial. Appellant sued as assignee of Taylor and White. Claim 31, broader in its terms than any of the others, reads as follows: “31. In bleaching cellulosic material, the improvement which comprises subjecting the cellulosic material to treatment with an acid aqueous solution containing a chlorite of a metal of…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Loom Co. v. HigginsSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Deering v. Winona Harvester WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- L. Sonneborn Sons, Inc. v. CoeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- E. I. Dupont De Nemours and Company v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents, and Luther H. Hodges, Secretary of CommerceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1964
- Phillips Petroleum Company v. LaddDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1963
- General Foods Corp. v. Perk Foods Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1968
- Foremost Dairies, Inc. v. WatsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1955
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.