Court Opinion

ID: 9651022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:02:40.2807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:28.991865
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing,
DENISON, Circuit Judge.
1. The statement in the opinion, that “the legal and heavy burden of proof as to all the elements involved eoiddlllles until the end upon one who attaoks pateQt grant„ we made deliberate. ^ though' familiar with Smith v. Sprague, 123 U. S. 249, 264, 8 S. Ct. 122, 31 L. Ed. 141; Columbus Co. v. Standard Co. (C. C. A. 6) 148 F. 622 629, 78 C. C. A. 394, and others of t]ie eases now mged. Some of t]lem contain at least dieta to fte effeet tkat the burden may ski£ t> bllt we ar6 not satisfied that the criticized statement ^ our opinion is incorrect; the relative unimportance of the matter in this ease does not justify a complete review and analysis.
2. The application suggests an ineonsistency in saying, as the opinion did, that in Deeember it seemed that the invention probably' could not be further perfected, and yet holding that the experimental period did not expire until January. This suggestion overlooks the underlying inference of the opinion that, when the ditcher was laid up in Deeember for the winter, it had not been decided whether this particular attachment would ever be manufactured, or would be thrown away as an unsuccessful experiment. Not until the order for castings was given in January did this uncertainty disappear,
3. The remaining matters alleged were sufficiently considered in the opinion,
The application is denied.