Boston Pneumatic Power Co. v. Eureka Patents Co.

Decision Date06 July 1905
Docket Number2,022.
Citation139 F. 29
PartiesBOSTON PNEUMATIC POWER CO. v. EUREKA PATENTS CO. et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

Chas F. A. Smith and Aldrich & Shurtleff, for complainant.

George N. Goddard, for defendants.

LOWELL Circuit Judge.

This was a bill in equity, brought under Rev. St. Sec. 4918 (U.S Comp. St. 1901, p. 3394), to annul claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 of letters patent No. 710,291, issued to Moran, as being in interference with claim 1 of Letters patent No. 673,922, to Nolan. The claims are as follows:

Nolan '(1) In a pumping system for beer or other liquids a plurality of barrels or receptacles, a source of pneumatic pressure, a main-pressure pipe leading from said source and communicating with all the receptacles in use, an outlet-pipe leading from each receptacle, a supplemental-pressure pipe leading from said source and communicating with each of said outlet-pipes, and a check-valve to control each of such points of communication, whereby the contents of the several receptacles are prevented from entering the supplemental-pressure pipe, substantially as described.'

Moran '(1) In a dispensing apparatus for liquids, a receptacle containing the liquid, a source of pneumatic pressure, a main pressure-pipe from said source of pressure, communicating with said receptacle above the liquid therein, a discharge-pipe from said receptacle, a discharge-faucet on said discharge-pipe, a supplemental pressure-pipe under uniform pressure with that in the main pressure-pipe, said supplemental pressure-pipe located in part above the discharge-pipe, near the discharge-faucet thereon and connected to the discharge-pipe at that place from above said discharge-pipe, and a stopcock above the discharge-pipe and within the supplemental pipe near its connection with the discharge-pipe, whereby the liquid in the discharge-pipe may be allowed to return by gravity to said receptacle by the operating of said stopcock and the liquid be prevented from leaking into the supplemental pressure-pipe from the discharge-pipe.

'(2) In a dispensing apparatus for liquids, a receptacle containing the liquid, a source of pneumatic pressure, a main pressure-pipe from said source of pressure communicating with said receptacle above the liquid therein, a discharge-pipe from said receptacle, a discharge-faucet on said discharge-pipe a supplemental pressure-pipe under uniform pressure at all times with that in the main pressure-pipe, said supplemental pressure-pipe located in part above the discharge-pipe near the discharge-faucet thereon and connected to the discharge-pipe at that place from above said discharge-pipe, a stopcock within the supplemental pressure-pipe near its connection with the discharge-pipe leaving a vertically-arranged passage between said stopcock and discharge-pipe, whereby the liquid in the discharge-pipe may be allowed to return by gravity alone to the receptacle by opening said stopcock, and whereby a cushion of air will remain within said vertically-arranged passage and prevent the liquid from the discharge-pipe from connecting with said stopcock when the stopcock is closed.

'(3) In a dispensing apparatus for liquids, a receptacle containing the liquid, a source of pneumatic pressure, a main pressure-pipe from said source of pressure communicating with said receptacle above the liquid therein, a discharge pipe from said receptacle, a discharge-faucet on said discharge-pipe, a supplemental pipe under uniform pressure at all times with that in the main pressure-pipe and connected to the discharge-pipe near the discharge-faucet thereon, and a stopcock having a contracted passage through it when opened located within the supplemental pressure=pipe near its connection with the discharge-pipe, whereby the liquid in the discharge-pipe may be allowed to return by gravity alone to said receptacle when said stopcock is opened and its returning movement be retarded as desired by the contracted passage through said stopcock.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Dittgen v. Racine Paper Goods Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • June 10, 1910
    ... ... however, following the case of Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co ... v. Lozier, 90 F. 732, 33 C.C.A. 255, and ... 'Whenever ... there are interfering patents, any person interested in any ... one of them, or in the ... In Boston Pneumatic Power Co. v. Eureka Patents Co ... (C.C.) 139 ... ...
  • International Signal Co. v. Vreeland Apparatus Co., Inc., 3.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • December 14, 1921
    ... ... v ... Blackmore (C.C.) 156 F. 968; but see Boston ... Pneumatic Tire Co. v. Eureka Patents Co. (C.C.) 139 ... v ... Brown Co., supra; Boston Pneumatic Power Co. v. Eureka ... Patents Co., supra ... ...
  • Dooley Improvements v. CENTRAL HANOVER BANK & T. CO.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • May 23, 1939
    ...as Cole's) containing a broad claim, and another (such as Sweetland's) containing more restricted claims. Boston Pneumatic Power Co. v. Eureka Patents Co., C.C., 139 F. 29, 31; Donner v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co., C.C., 160 F. Inasmuch as I find that there is no interference between th......
  • Glade v. Walgreen Co., 7572.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • December 8, 1941
    ...substantially identical, for the reasons hereinbefore stated, hence we think the contention is without merit. Boston Pneumatic Power Co. v. Eureka Patents Co., C.C., 139 F. 29. It is also urged by defendants that the claims in the Martin patent were not the same as the claims originally fil......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT