Bickell v. Smith-Hamburg-Scott Welding Co., 444.
| Citation | 53 F.2d 356 |
| Decision Date | 25 August 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 444.,444. |
| Parties | BICKELL et al. v. SMITH-HAMBURG-SCOTT WELDING CO. OF NEW YORK, Inc., et al. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
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.
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:
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 that he contemplated either pumping out or forcing out by compressed air the contents of the tank compartments; and that the introduction of the idea of siphonic discharge, made by amendment in 1926 and after the fire department officials of New York City had published specifications calling for this type of tank truck, changed the whole tenor of the original application and was not the invention of Hayes.
It is true that the original application did not mention the word "siphon," and that only one of the seventeen original claims could possibly be read as claiming a tank truck discharging by siphonic action. The original specifications and drawings disclosed a tank divided into compartments and equipped with two systems of piping, one for discharging the gasoline, and the other a fire-fighting apparatus. Most of the...
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
...that Stone had conceived 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 s......
-
Research Products Co. v. Tretolite Co.
...to be understood and applied 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; M......
-
Foxboro Co. v. Taylor Instrument Companies
...characteristic of known 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 ......
-
Schick Dry Shaver v. RH Macy & Co.
...to file a supplemental 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, f......