Legal Opinion
International Burr Corporation v. Wood Grinding Service
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided July 22, 1929No. 203PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSwan, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The process patent illustrates and describes an apparatus for grinding logs into pulp. The specifications explain that the inventor’s object is to obtain pulp which shall have longer, stronger, and more uniform fibers than have been secured by former grinding processes, and that this object is to be attained by making suitable grooves or depressions- in the face of the grindstone, in which abraded fibers will lodge and thus obtain protection from further grinding against the undersurface of the logs as the stone moves on. Between these grooves is the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hildreth v. MastorasSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- United States v. Harvey Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
- St. Paul Plow Works v. StarlingSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Kinsman v. ParkhurstSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Tate v. Baltimore & O. R.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1915
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Beegle v. ThomsonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1943
- Cold Metal Process Co. v. UNITED STATES ENG. & FOUNDRY CO.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1933
- United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. KamborianCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1947
- United States Hoffman MacHinery Corp. v. RichaDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1948
- Cornell v. Chase Brass & Copper Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1943
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.