Eppensteiner v. Coe
| Decision Date | 29 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 7395.,7395. |
| Citation | 114 F.2d 457,72 App. DC 169 |
| Parties | EPPENSTEINER et al. v. COE, Com'r of Patents. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Joseph H. Milans and Calvin H. Milans, both of Washington, D. C., and Eugene V. Myers and Abraham Engel, both of New York City, for appellants.
William Wallace Cochran, U. S. Patent Office, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, EDGERTON, and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices.
This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing, for lack of invention, a bill to authorize the issue of a patent.1
The claims relate to a method and an apparatus for casting copper or similar metal in vertical molds. The purpose is to avoid "pitting" and "cold sets" due to splashing. Applicant uses a manually operated overflow ladle, with a discharge passage below its upper edge, which is gradually filled with molten metal as it is lowered (or, on occasion, raised) in the mold.
Hosack's patent, No. 1,375,589, to avoid splashing in the casting of "steel and other metals," uses a suspended pilot ladle, raised and lowered by either mechanical or manual means, which receives molten metal and is lowered into the mold. Hosack shows several varieties of ladle, including one which has "a plurality of holes around it" and one in which the hole in the bottom is plugged. Ennor's patent, No. 1,983,579, for the casting of "metal," shows a receiver, with closed bottom, which may be gradually lowered into the mold. The Walker patent, No. 597,367, for casting "metals * * * such as copper," uses a ladle, with a pouring-lip below its top, as a means to reduce the fall of the metal and thereby avoid "cold-set or core, splash, or cling."
As Hosack's falling stream is perpendicular, his ladle moves in a straight path to receive the stream. Applicant pours his metal in a curved stream; this, he says, is the necessary method of casting copper in vertical molds, since copper cannot be undertapped. Accordingly he moves his ladle through a curved path. As the examiner says:
Applicant points to differences between the casting of copper and the casting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Standard Cap & Seal Corporation v. Coe
...that there was none is consistent with the evidence.", quoted in Wolf v. Coe, 72 App.D.C. 224, 112 F.2d 857, and in Eppensteiner v. Coe, 72 App.D.C. 169, 114 F.2d 457; Radtke Patents Corp. v. Coe, 74 App.D.C. 251, 122 F.2d 937; Krause v. Coe, 74 App.D.C. 47, 120 F.2d 717, 19 Levine v. Coe, ......
-
Besser v. Ooms
...Patents Corp. v. Coe, 74 App.D.C. 251, 122 F.2d 937, certiorari denied, 314 U.S. 695, 62 S.Ct. 411, 86 L.Ed. 556; Eppensteiner v. Coe, 72 App.D.C. 169, 114 F.2d 457; Wolf v. Coe, 72 App.D.C. 224, 112 F.2d 857; Forward Process Co. v. Coe, 73 App.D.C. 100, 116 F.2d 946; Sharp v. Coe, 75 U. S.......
-
General Motors Corporation v. Coe
...5 Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Coe, App.D.C., 118 F.2d 593, 594. 6 Abbott v. Coe, 71 App.D.C. 195, 109 F.2d 449; Eppensteiner v. Coe, 72 App. D.C. 169, 114 F.2d 457; Wolf et al. v. Coe, 72 App.D.C. 224, 112 F.2d 857; Daniels v. Coe, App.D.C., 116 F.2d 941; Forward Process Co. v. Coe, App.......
-
In re Wesselman
...885, 46 F.2d 373, 8 U.S.P.Q. 166; In re Randell, 21 C.C.P.A., Patents, 745, 67 F.2d 931, 20 U.S.P.Q. 11; Eppensteiner et al. v. Coe, 72 App.D.C. 169, 114 F.2d 457, 45 U.S.P.Q. 298. We have given careful study to the elements of the rejected claims in the light of appellant's analysis of the......