Byerley v. Sun Co.
Citation | 181 F. 138 |
Decision Date | 15 July 1910 |
Docket Number | 201. |
Parties | BYERLEY v. SUN CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
W. K Richardson and Harrison F. Lyman, for complainant.
Wm. L Pierce and Augustus B. Stoughton, for respondents.
ORR District Judge (specially presiding).
The complainant, who is the inventor and owner, charges the defendant with infringement of letters patent of the United States No. 524,130, dated August 7, 1894, and issued to the complainant, Francis X. Byerley, for a process of making asphaltic products and also for the products themselves. The bill is in the usual form, and prays the customary relief. The defenses in the answer are many, and such as have been urged in the proofs or arguments will hereafter be considered in detail.
As stated by the patentee, the invention relates more particularly to the manufacture of solid bodies from petroleum. He says:
Again he says:
The patentee then calls attention to the different compositions of crude petroleum from different localities, and says that, while he has successfully treated petroleum residuum proceeding from the ordinary distillation of Lima oil, yet it is intended by him 'to include tar or residuum from other petroleum. ' Likewise, after describing his apparatus and an illustrative run with Lima tar, he says:
'It is also not to be understood that the temperature most advantageous for Lima tar is necessarily the most advantageous for other petroleum tar or tar other than petroleum tar; but from the illustration and working figures given those skilled in the art will be enabled to effect a useful result on other tars.'
One further reference to the specifications is proper at this point. The patentee says:
'It is important in all cases to avoid a coking temperature, as the coke produced is not only itself an injurious ingredient in the asphaltum, but its formation indicates an alteration in the tar, or in bodies thereof, which it is desirable to avoid.'
The claims of the patent alleged to be infringed are as follows;
'1. The process of making asphaltic products, by prolonged exposure of petroleum tar to a pitch-forming noncoking temperature in a still, with agitation of said tar, and exposure of the same to air, substantially as described.
'2. The herein described new asphaltic petroleum products, soluble in benzine, varying in hardness at atmospheric temperatures from a rubber-like consistency to a mass of a hardness and conchoidal fracture like the natural asphaltums, the less hard having also a conchoidal fracture at lower temperatures, melting at from about 200 degress Fahrenheit to about 400 degress Fahrenheit according to hardness, and in general having characteristics belonging to asphaltic residual products from a prolonged exposure of petroleum tar to a pitch-forming noncoking temperature in a still with agitation of said tar, and exposure of the same to air in contradistinction to previously known natural or artificial products of a more or less asphaltic character, substantially as set forth.
'3. The process of making asphaltic products, by prolonged exposure of petroleum tar to a pitch-forming noncoking temperature in a still, with exhaustion of the products of distillation, agitation of the tar, and exposure of said tar to air, substantially as described.
'6. The process of making asphaltic or pitchy bodies, by prolonged exposure of petroleum tar to a pitch-forming temperature in a still, with agitation of said tar, and exposure of the same to air, substantially as described.
'7. The process of making asphaltic or pitchy bodies, by prolonged exposure of petroleum tar to a pitch-forming temperature in a still, with exhaustion of the products of distillation, agitation of said tar, and exposure of the same to air, substantially as described.
'8. The process of making asphaltic or pitchy bodies, by subjecting pitch-yielding tar to a pitch-forming noncoking temperature, with agitation of the tar, and exposure of the same to air, substantially as described.
'9. The process of making asphaltic or pitchy bodies, by subjecting pitch-yielding tar to a pitch-forming noncoking temperature, with exhaustion of the products of distillation, agitation of the tar, and exposure of the same to air, substantially as described.
All of said claims, except claim 2, relate to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Taylor v. Fuqua
-
Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Standard Asphalt & Rubber Co.
...these patents were pending, Culmer was sustained over Byerley. Byerley v. Standard Asphalt and Rubber Co. (C. C.) 189 F. 759; Byerley v. Sun Co. (C. C.) 181 F. 138; Id. (C. C. A.) 184 F. 455; Id. (D. C.) 226 F. 759; Byerley v. Baraber Asphalt Co. (D. C.) 230 F. Doubtless more testimony was ......
-
Byerley v. Standard Asphalt & Rubber Co.
...issued to one Francis X. Byerley August 7, 1894. It has been sustained by the Circuit Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (181 F. 138), and by the Court of Appeals of this circuit (184 F. 455, 106 C.C.A. 537). The matter, as now presented, is upon a motion for a preliminaryinjunc......
-
Byerley v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.
...of the Byerley invention, I do not see any reason to enlarge. They have been referred to in the opinions of both the District Court (181 F. 138) and the Circuit Court of Appeals (184 455, 106 C.C.A. 537) in the case of Byerley v. Sun Company, and I fully agree with those opinions as herein ......