Barber Asphalt Co. v. Stulz-Sickles Co., 6171.
Decision Date | 19 April 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 6171.,6171. |
Parties | BARBER ASPHALT CO. v. STULZ-SICKLES CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Busser & Harding, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Frank S. Busser and George J. Harding, both of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for appellant.
Samuel Ostrolenk, of New York City, for appellees.
Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
The primary question in this case is the validity of patent No. 1,684,671, granted September 18, 1928, to Harold P. Hayden, assignor to Barber Asphalt Company, the present plaintiff, for "method of preventing evaporation from concrete during curing." The practice of the art prior to the patent in suit, the objections thereto, the novel means the patentee disclosed to overcome these objections, their effectiveness and money saving, are set forth in his patent specification, which we adopt, in view of the proofs, as the facts of the case, to wit:
Upon this disclosure, there was granted, inter alia, the here involved claims 4, 5, and 9, as follows:
The make-up of concrete and the action of water in forming it are well known. It is caused by the chemical action of water on powdered Portland cement mixed with sand and crushed stone. When first mixed, the resultant is physically, as the proofs show, very soft and offers no resistance whatever to any weight placed on it or anything coming in contact with it. It would immediately sink of its own weight. But hydration, or the action of the water, goes on and in a few hours the mixture is "set." Thereafter the hydration proceeds constantly and "cures" the mix, with the result of stonelike hardness being attained. Describing the practice prior to the patent in suit, an experienced engineer testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barber Asphalt Corp. v. La Fera Grecco Contr. Co., 7397.
...already stated, we can perceive no invention in the Hayden patent. In the contributory infringement suit of Barber Asphalt Company v. Stulz-Sickles Company, 3 Cir., 89 F.2d 960, reversing an earlier decision of the District Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey, reported......
-
Barber Asphalt Corp. v. La Fera Grecco Contr. Co.
...for many purposes. The validity of the patent has heretofore been sustained by the courts in the case of Barber Asphalt Company v. Stulz-Sickles Company et al., 3 Cir., 89 F.2d 960, reversing, D.C., 14 F.Supp. 212. On appeal the Supreme Court denied plaintiff's claim for relief on the groun......
-
Leitch Mfg Co v. Barber Co
...and directed that the District Court enter a decree adjudging the claims in issue valid and infringed, and awarding an accounting. 3 Cir., 89 F.2d 960. One judge dissented on the ground that the decree dismissing the bill should have been affirmed under the rule declared in the Carbice Case......
- Portage Silica Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue