Case Name: HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO. v. WALKER et al.; WALKER et al. v. HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1945-06-12
Citations: 149 F.2d 896
Docket Number: No. 10513
Parties: HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO. v. WALKER et al. WALKER et al. v. HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO.
Judges: Before DENMAN, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 149
Pages: 896–896

Head Matter:
HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO. v. WALKER et al. WALKER et al. v. HALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO.
No. 10513.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 12, 1945.
For former opinion, see 146 F.2d 817.
Frank L. A. Graham, of Los Angeles, Cal., and Earl Babcock, of Duncan, Okl., for appellant Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.
Harold W. Mattingly and Robert W. Fulwider, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants Cranford P. Walker et al.
Before DENMAN, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In its petition for rehearing appellant, Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company, assumes that the court in ruling on Walker's patent No. 2,156.519 failed to consider the cases of General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corporation, 304 U.S. 364, 58 S.Ct. 899, 82 L.Ed. 1402, and Davis Sewing Mach. Co. v. New Departure Mfg. Co., 6 Cir., 217 F. 775, particularly the first of these decisions. Halliburton is mistaken. In the General Electric case the claim considered was not one for a combination of elements, but a claim for a single element. Here, the claims are for a combination of elements. They sufficiently define the limits of the invention- to enable those having knowledge of acoustics and of the principles of the physics of sound to determine what is covered and what is beyond the scope of the claimed invention.
Petition for rehearing is denied.