v1224-105
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
OCTOBER TERM, 1918.
No. 3341.
JIM M. MASTORAS, Defendant-Appellant,
HERBERT L. HILDRETH, Plaintiff-Appellee.
PETITION FOR REHEARING.
To the Honorable Judges of the Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit:
The plaintiff-appellee, Herbert L. Hildreth, hereby respect-
fully suggests to the Court that the opinion filed February
24, 1920, contains certain errors which are of such rele-
vance, materiality and importance that the Court would
necessarily have reached an opposite conclusion and would
have affirmed the decree of the District Court had the said
matters been fully and correctly apprehended. These mat-
ters may be summarized as follows :
- The process of pulling candy, which is the subject of
the patent in suit, is the same as the hand process of pulling
candy and consists in converting the plastic candy into a
bundle of substantially parallel fibres between which are
formed air cells containing entangled air. The mere elon-
gation of a strand of candy as would be the case if two
members moved apart indefinitely is not pulling candy within
the meaning of the patent in suit because it does not convert
i- i L ti
archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs1224
Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs1224
Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs1224#page/n104/mode/1up
Top Keywords (auto-generated):
candy, patent, machine, dickinson, pulling, pins, ought, hildreth, pull, opposite, ma, hooks, district, wrong, operativeness
Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):
dickinson patent, dickinson machine, pulling candy, pull candy, ma chine, candy pulling, substantially parallel, pulling machine, pins oppositely, parallel fibres, oppositely disposed, opposite directions, firchau patent, firchau machine, expert williams
Document Status: UGLY