Legal Opinion

Moore v. Greene

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided April 29, 1931No. 2721PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGarrett, Judge

This is an interference proceeding relating to four counts, Nos. 1 and 4 being mechanical, and Nos. 8 and 9 being for the method. We here quote Nos. 1 and 4:

1. A polyphase arc electric furnace comprising a plurality of arcing electrodes, and means for unbalancing the current or voltage of one or more of the polyphase arcs.

4. A polyphase electric furnace, comprising a plurality of arcing electrodes, a polyphase circuit connected with said electrodes, and means for unbalancing the voltage supplied to one of said electrodes.

The history of the case to date is as follows:

On January 3, 1913,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
  2. General Electric Co. v. SteinbergerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1914

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Arthur Liebscher v. Wilson P. BoothroydCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1958
  2. Writer v. KiwadCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1933
  3. Doherty v. DubbsCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1934
  4. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. NicholsDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API