February 26, 1935
JOHN T. RIDDELL, INC.,
ATHLETIC SHOE CO.
On Petition for Rehearing.
There are three reasons assigned in appellant's petition for a rehearing which we wish to especially notice, because of the urgency of the petition.
Counsel stresses the fact that he did not have sufficient time in which to argue his case before this court. He was allotted and used the full time permitted under the rules of this court, and we think it was ample for the purpose of presenting every issue raised. Furthermore, the issues were fully presented by excellent briefs by the counsel of both parties.
It is next contended that the court in describing the patent failed to mention the washer interposed between the nut and the sole of the shoe. That is true, but the claims in issue make no mention of a washer. However, the metallic washer alluded to, and its use, is specifically mentioned and discussed later in the opinion.
Further complaint is made of the court's statement that there was substantial evidence in support of the fact that appellant was unable to produce a satisfactory commercial article by following the claim of the plate patent, and was forced to abandon it and resort to the construction set forth in the original claims and specifications. That statement did not purport to be a quotation from the testimony of any witness, but we think it is logically inferable from the evidence adduced.
Other reasons urged were formerly presented and fully considered, and we think they are without merit.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.