Case Name: LANOVA CORPORATION and Acro Aktiengesellschaft, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The NATIONAL SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1941-01-07
Citations: 116 F.2d 934
Docket Number: No. 7341
Parties: LANOVA CORPORATION and Acro Aktiengesellschaft, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The NATIONAL SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before BIGGS, MARIS, and CLARK, Circuit Judges. •
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 116
Pages: 934–935

Head Matter:
LANOVA CORPORATION and Acro Aktiengesellschaft, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The NATIONAL SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 7341.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Jan. 7, 1941.
For former opinion, see 116 F.2d 235.
John L. Jackson and Arthur H. Boettcher, both of Chicago, 111., and Charles Denby, Jr., and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellants.
Wilber Owen, Allen Owen, and Carl F. Schaffer, all of Toledo, Ohio, and Edward A. Lawrence, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before BIGGS, MARIS, and CLARK, Circuit Judges. •

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In a petition for rehearing the appellants contend that this court " fell into a critical error of fact in finding that, at the end of the prosecution of the application for the patent in suit, the Patent Office was convinced that the chamber b was an 'air-cell' only and allowed the patent accordingly." In support of this contention the appellants refer to amendments embodied in the last clause of the claims in issue and to the "Remarks" accompanying the final amendment.
Lang quoted his original specifications in these "Remarks" solely for the purpose of convincing the Patent Office that he intended to disclose a self-igniting oil motor which, as he himself put it, " because of its comparatively high compression and late fuel injection, functions differently and accomplishes different results from any engine of the prior art." Lang emphasized high compression and late fuel injection. In no respect did he return to his contention that chamber b was a combustion chamber. An examination of the record makes this very plain.
Since the contention of the appellants is without merit, the petition for rehearing will be denied.