Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 266 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1959). · Go Syfert
Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 266 F.2d 352 (5th Cir. 1959). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Cited for
At page 352 Limiting reissue patent claims to specific tools1 citing case“the claims themselves of the reissue patent are limited to a combination rotary drilling tool, bit, or drill”1 citing court quotes it
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kinnear-Weed Corporation, Appellant,
v.
Humble Oil & Refining Company, Appellee
16780.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 30, 1959.
Published opinion
266 F.2d 352
1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 3943
William E. Kinnear, Beaumont, Tex., for appellant., Garrett R. Tucker, Jr., Walter B. Morgan, Houston, Tex., B. D. Orgain, Beaumont, Tex., Frank B. Pugsley, Melvin F. Fincke, Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Rives, Jones, Wisdom.
Published
PER CURIAM.

We did not intend to read into the claims of appellant’s patent, as limitations of that patent, any part of the drawings or of the specifications not expressed or necessarily referred to by implication in those claims. In our opinion, the claims themselves of the reissue patent are limited to a combination rotary drilling tool, bit, or drill, and the patent has not been infringed by the appellee. We correct clerical errors in a sentence in the next to the concluding paragraph of the opinion reading, “We agree with the district court that the appellant has not infringed appellee’s patent” [259 F.2d 402] by changing the sentence to read “We agree with the district court that the appellee has not infringed appellant’s patent.” The petition for rehearing is

Denied.