American Soda Fountain Co. v. Sample
| Decision Date | 16 May 1904 |
| Docket Number | 20. |
| Citation | 130 F. 145 |
| Parties | AMERICAN SODA FOUNTAIN CO. et al. v. SAMPLE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Joshua Pusey, for appellants.
W. G Henderson, for appellee.
Before ACHESON and GRAY, Circuit Judges, and KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.
This suit was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of pennsylvania, by George W Sample, the appellee and complainant below, for the infringement of letters patent of the United States, No 498,962, issued to said Sample June 6, 1893, for a draft tube for soda water fountains. The bill of complaint is in the usual form, and charges infringement of said letters patent by the defendants, the American Soda Fountain Company and Alfred H. Lippincott, agent and general manager of said company. The answer is in the usual form, and denies infringement. It avers that, in view of certain prior patents and prior uses by others, the said patent is invalid, and that, in view of the well-known state of the art, at and before the date of the alleged invention of complainant, the same did not involve invention, and was and is without patentable novelty. The court below adjudged the first and fifth claims of the patent in suit (these being the only claims defendants were charged with infringing) to be valid, and that defendants had infringed said claims. From this decree, the present appeal is taken.
The patentee thus describes in the specifications of his patent his alleged invention:
'My invention relates to draft tubes for soda water dispensing apparatus, and has for its object to provide an improved draft tube wherein the valve which controls the discharge of the soda water into the glass or tumbler is provided with one passage or channel for the discharge of the water in a forcible stream or jet for the purpose of mixing the syrup and the water, and with a plurality of passages or channels for the passage of separate streams or jets of the water to be mixed with the syrup and served to the user, the said plurality of passages or channels other than the channel for the jet to mix the water and syrup being connected with a common inlet port therefor, and the passage or channel for the mixing stream or jet being connected with another port, so that while there will be at least three passages or channels within the body of the valve for the passage of the water there will be only two inlet ports for the series of channels or passages whereby is obtained a better distribution of the soda water with a construction requiring less labor in its operation, and in which loose or leaking joints are not so liable to occur.
It further consists in providing the two channels or passages through which passes the water to mix with the syrup with a series of perforations extending outwardly in an upward direction so that the water will be projected upwardly in a series of small jets and be then directed by a conical nozzle to the glass in a copious but in a quiet or gentle flow so that the glass can be filled in less time than otherwise and the overflow of the glass guarded against.
It further consists in means for readily adjusting the valve against its seat so as to easily and quickly take up any wear as it occurs and thus insure a close joint between the valve and its seat.'
The first and fifth claims of the patent (the only ones here involved) are as follows:
According to the evidence, it is desirable, in the class of devices to which the patent in suit relates, to provide a valve mechanism whereby a single 'sharp' or forcible stream may be first directed into the tumbler or receptacle, for the purpose of thoroughly mixing the syrup and soda water. When this is done, and before the glass is filled, it is also desirable that a 'soft' or diffused stream, or what is known as 'flat' soda water, may be drawn into the glass or receptacle in such manner that the danger of splashing or overflowing the glass will be avoided. This is in general accomplished by conveying the air-charged soda water through a straight tube of small diameter, the water being discharged without interruption in a 'sharp' strong stream into the receptacle, the 'soft' or diffused stream being produced by conveying the water through the port into a tube which immediately branches into two tubes of equal or greater diameter, from which the water is discharged against the sides of the nozzle through which it passes softly into the glass. That this is the main and controlling idea embodied in both claims (1 and 5) of the patent in suit (the fifth claim only differing from the first in that it includes 'means for adjusting and for holding said valve against the seat'), is clearly set forth in the testimony of complainant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delco Chemicals v. Cee-Bee Chemical Co.
...2 Cir., 1934, 70 F.2d 257, 258; R. Hoe & Co. v. Goss Printing Press Co., 2 Cir., 1929, 30 F.2d 271, 274; American Soda Fountain Co. v. Sample, 3 Cir., 130 F. 145, 149-150, certiorari denied 1904, 195 U.S. 634, 25 S.Ct. 791, 49 L.Ed. Such uncited prior art is as if unknown to the Commissione......
-
Virtue v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Company
... ... v. Kaufmann Bros. (C.C.) ... 126 F. 658; American Soda Fountain Co. v. Sample, ... 130 F. 145, 64 C.C.A. 497 ... ...
-
Stoody Co. v. Mills Alloys, 7059.
...advantages possessed by the trial court, a reversal must follow." Another leading case on the subject is American Soda Fountain Co. v. Sample (C. C. A. 3) 130 F. 145, 149, 150, certiorari denied 195 U. S. 634, 25 S. Ct. 791, 49 L. Ed. 354, in which Judge Gray used the following language: "W......
-
Chisholm-Ryder Co. v. Buck
...of the patent in suit. International Flatstub Check Book Co. v. Young & Selden, 284 F. 831, 832 (C. C. A. 4); American Soda Fountain Co. v. Sample, 130 F. 145 (C. C. A. 3); Elliott & Co. v. Youngstown Car Mfg. Co., 181 F. 345 (C. C. A. 3). In this case the file wrapper relating to the plain......