Court Opinion

ID: 9650596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:45:32.352812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:24.161171
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
1. Patent to Thomson, No. 347,140, was fully considered by the court, but was regarded, as clearly disclosing only mechanism for practicing ihe resistance method of electric welding and as not anticipatory.
2. Wo think that no serious misunderstanding arose from whatever inaccuracy there may have been in statement of the difference of arrangement, in the circuit, of the induction coil of the Coopor-Hewitt machine and the condenser of the patent in suit, which statement was based in kng'e part upon the brief of the appellee who now asks a rehearing. We adhere to the opinion that tho two devices operate upon different principles.
The petition for rehearing is denied.