Court Opinion

ID: 9636353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:24:56.977995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:44.492356
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
The only question raised to which we think it necessary to refer is our statement that cmsium is an impurity deliberately introduced into the tube. Claude’s French patent specifies lithium as one of the metals which may operate to purify neon, and apparently it is one of the metals which is interchangeable with caesium to form the defendant’s mirror. ' Machlett on the first trial said that the defendant introduced caesium id part to purify the gas. There is therefore at least some doubt whether the statement in the opinion was not untrue. Without deciding either way, since we have not heard the appellee, the passage in question may be taken as eliminated; it was in no sense necessary to the result.