KOPPEL INDUSTRIAL CAR & E. CO. v. Blaw-Knox Co.

• Decision Date: 03 December 1934
• Docket Number: No. 5230.,5230.
• Citation: 73 F.2d 602
• Parties: KOPPEL INDUSTRIAL CAR & EQUIPMENT CO. v. BLAW-KNOX CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

73 F.2d 602 (1934)

KOPPEL INDUSTRIAL CAR & EQUIPMENT CO. v. BLAW-KNOX CO.

No. 5230.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

October 4, 1934.

Rehearing Denied December 3, 1934.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Brown, Critchlow & Flick, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Jo. Baily Brown and J. R. Langley, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for appellant.

Byrnes, Stebbins, Parmelee & Blenko, of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Clarence P. Byrnes and Walter J. Blenko, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for appellee.

Before WOOLLEY, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granting an injunction and accounting for alleged infringement of Brynoldt patent, No. 1,298,450, for apparatus for constructing concrete walls, which patent had been assigned to the appellee, Blaw-Knox Company. The patent states as follows: "This invention relates to the process and apparatus for constructing concrete walls and more particularly that class of walls required for canal locks, retaining walls, and the like, and has for its principal objects; the provision of means whereby a single wall form may be used to construct a wall of greater length than the form with a minimum of apparatus and manipulation; the provision of an apparatus wherein a wall form may be supported without the customary use of tie rods, or in the case of a very high wall with a minimum number of tie rods; the provision of a mold form wherein the strain upon the supports and tie rods is equalized throughout the length of the mold form; the provision of improved methods of supporting the bulkheads closing the ends of the forms whereby the form may be detached from the finished wall section and moved to a new position with a minimum of labor and time consumed in its operation; the provision of efficient means for adjusting the mold forms with respect to the supports, and such other objects as may hereinafter appear."

The claims in suit are as follows:

"3. In a wall mold apparatus, the combination of a pair of side trusses connected adjacent the top so as to constitute a member adapted to straddle the work, a pair of oppositely disposed wall mold sections supported within said member, and means for supporting the lower ends of the side trusses against displacement."

"5. In a wall mold apparatus, the combination of a pair of substantially vertical truss members adapted to lie on opposite sides of the work, means connecting the upper portions of said members to prevent displacement thereof, means adapted to prevent displacement of the lower portions of said members, two oppositely disposed wall mold sections between said truss members, and means for supporting the sections from the said members."

"7. In a wall mold apparatus, the combination of a pair of upwardly extending truss members adapted to lie on...