Bickell v. Smith-Hamburg-Scott Welding Co., No. 444.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | MANTON, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit |
| Citation | 53 F.2d 356 |
| Parties | BICKELL et al. v. SMITH-HAMBURG-SCOTT WELDING CO. OF NEW YORK, Inc., et al. |
| Docket Number | No. 444. |
| Decision Date | 25 August 1931 |
53 F.2d 356 (1931)
BICKELL et al.
v.
SMITH-HAMBURG-SCOTT WELDING CO. OF NEW YORK, Inc., et al.
No. 444.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
August 25, 1931.
Charles H. Wilson, of New York City, for appellants.
Pennie, Davis, Marvin & Edmonds, of New York City (Dean S. Edmonds and Leslie B. Young, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
SWAN, Circuit Judge.
This is a suit for patent infringement brought by Bickell, as owner of the patent, and Kramer, as exclusive licensee thereunder, against two corporations, each of which has a place of business within the Eastern district of New York and is charged with having there committed acts of infringement.
The patent in suit relates to a tank truck for transporting and delivering inflammable liquids such as gasoline. The specifications refer to deficiencies in trucks of the prior art which provided for drawing off the liquid by gravity through outlets at the bottom of the tank, with consequent danger of leakage if the outlet faucets become damaged or defective. In certain cities such tank trucks were forbidden to operate and gasoline was required to be delivered in drums on stake wagons — a method uneconomical and also fraught with danger. These difficulties the inventor proposed to overcome by drawing off the gasoline through the top of the tank by siphonic action. The tank of the patent is described as divided into compartments, each having individual discharge pipes leading to a common discharge pipe above the gasoline and operating by siphonic flow, which is initiated by a pump and allowed to continue, once it has been started, through a by-pass around the pump. Associated with each compartment is a control valve, and these valves are operable selectively so that liquid from any compartment can be discharged at will siphonically, while the other compartments remain closed.
Of the five claims in suit, it will suffice to quote claims 3 and 23, which read as follows:
"3. A gasolene delivery vehicle having in combination multiple tank compartments on the vehicle, pipes in the respective compartments constituting intake limbs of a siphon, a delivery limb on the vehicle, a pump connected with the siphon, means for by-passing the pump when flow has been established, and means for selecting the compartments."
"23. A tank comprising a plurality of compartments, a siphon having a plurality of intake limbs terminating in different compartments, means for selectively controlling flow from the individual compartments, said selective means being operable at a point remote from said valves, means for initiating flow through the siphon, and a by-pass around said means."
The District Court found that each of the defendants had infringed the claims in suit by making tank trucks of the type illustrated in Exhibit 9. If the claims in suit are valid, we have no doubt of the correctness of the finding of infringement.
The defendants' first challenge to validity of the patent is based upon the contention that the idea of siphonic discharge was not a part of Hayes' conception when he filed his application on May 7, 1923; that his original disclosure showed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co of America v. United States United States v. Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co of America 8212 12, 1943, Nos. 369
...of the idea of tuning all four circuits prior to the date of Marconi's invention. Cf. Bickell v. Smith-Hanburg-Scott Welding Co., 2 Cir., 53 F.2d 356, 358. It is well established that as between two inventors priority of invention will be awarded to the one who by satisfying proof can show ......
-
Research Products Co. v. Tretolite Co., No. 9058.
...by those engaged in the art of organic chemistry as applied to petroleum recovery. Bickell v. Smith-Hamburg-Scott Welding Co., 2 Cir., 53 F.2d 356; Helfrich v. Solo, 7 Cir., 59 F.2d 525; United States Industrial Chemical Co. v. Theroz Co., 4 Cir., 25 F.2d 387; Minerals Separation Ltd. v. Hy......
-
Foxboro Co. v. Taylor Instrument Companies, Civil Action No. 1034.
...structures disclosed in a patent need not be described in the patent specification. Bickell v. Smith-Hamburg-Scott Welding Co., 2 Cir., 53 F.2d 356. Foxboro's commercial controller, Model -10 Reactor, embodied all the elements of the proportioning controller and the same arrangement of the ......
-
Schick Dry Shaver v. RH Macy & Co.
...oath when claim 1, which claims this feature, was later interposed. Bickell v. Smith-Hamburg-Scott Welding Co. of New York et al., 2 Cir., 53 F.2d 356, at page 358; Scovill Mfg. Co. v. Radio Corporation of America, D.C., 9 F.Supp. Defendants' first model, Exhibit 8, follows and infringes th......
-
Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co of America v. United States United States v. Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co of America 8212 12, 1943, Nos. 369
...of the idea of tuning all four circuits prior to the date of Marconi's invention. Cf. Bickell v. Smith-Hanburg-Scott Welding Co., 2 Cir., 53 F.2d 356, 358. It is well established that as between two inventors priority of invention will be awarded to the one who by satisfying proof can show ......
-
Research Products Co. v. Tretolite Co., No. 9058.
...by those engaged in the art of organic chemistry as applied to petroleum recovery. Bickell v. Smith-Hamburg-Scott Welding Co., 2 Cir., 53 F.2d 356; Helfrich v. Solo, 7 Cir., 59 F.2d 525; United States Industrial Chemical Co. v. Theroz Co., 4 Cir., 25 F.2d 387; Minerals Separation Ltd. v. Hy......
-
Foxboro Co. v. Taylor Instrument Companies, Civil Action No. 1034.
...structures disclosed in a patent need not be described in the patent specification. Bickell v. Smith-Hamburg-Scott Welding Co., 2 Cir., 53 F.2d 356. Foxboro's commercial controller, Model -10 Reactor, embodied all the elements of the proportioning controller and the same arrangement of the ......
-
Schick Dry Shaver v. RH Macy & Co.
...oath when claim 1, which claims this feature, was later interposed. Bickell v. Smith-Hamburg-Scott Welding Co. of New York et al., 2 Cir., 53 F.2d 356, at page 358; Scovill Mfg. Co. v. Radio Corporation of America, D.C., 9 F.Supp. Defendants' first model, Exhibit 8, follows and infringes th......