Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co v. Walker

Decision Date18 November 1946
Docket NumberNo. 24,24
Citation67 S.Ct. 6,329 U.S. 1,91 L.Ed. 3
PartiesHALLIBURTON OIL WELL CEMENTING CO. v. WALKER, et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr.Earl Babcock, of Duncan, Okl. (Harry C. Robb, of Washington, D.C., on the brief), for petitioner.

Mr. Harold W. Mattingly, of Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

Cranford P. Walker, owner of Patent No. 2,156,519, and the other respondents, licensees under the patent, brought this suit in a federal district court alleging that petitioner, Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company, had infringed certain of the claims of the Walker patent. The district court held the claims in issue valid and infringed by Halliburton. The circuit court of appeals affirmed, 9 Cir., 146 F.2d 817, and denied Halliburton's petition for rehearing. 149 F.2d 896. Petitioner's application to this Court for certiorari urged, among other grounds, that the claims held valid failed to make the 'full, clear, concise, and exact' description of the alleged invention required by Rev.Stat. § 4888, 35 U.S.C. § 33, 35 U.S.C.A. § 33,1 as that statute was interpreted by us in General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corporation, 304 U.S. 364, 58 S.Ct. 899, 82 L.Ed. 1402.2 This statutory requirement of distinctness and certainty in claims is important in patent law. We granted certiorari to consider whether it was correctly applied in this case. 326 U.S. 705, 66 S.Ct. 90.3

The patent in suit was sustained as embodying an improvement over a past patent of Lehr and Wyatt (No. 2,047,974) upon an apparatus designed to facilitate the pumping of oil out of wells which do not have sufficient natural pressures to force the oil to gush. An outline of the background and setting of these patents is helpful to an understanding of the problem presented.

In order to operate a pump in an oil well most efficiently, cheaply, and with the least waste, the pump must be placed in an appropriate relationship to the fluid surface of the oil. Properly to place the pump in this relationship requires knowledge of the distance from the well top to the fluid surface. At least by the latter 1920's problems of waste and expense in connection with non-gusher oil wells pressed upon the industry. See Railroad Commission of Texas v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., 310 U.S. 573, 60 S.Ct. 1021, 84 L.Ed. 1368; Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424. It became apparent that inefficient pumping, one cause of waste, was in some measure attributable to lack of accurate knowledge of distance from well top to fluid surface. Ability to measure this distance in each separate non-gusher oil well became an obvious next step in the solution of this minor aspect of the problem of waste.

The surface and internal machinery and the corkscrew conformation of some oil wells make it impractical to measure depth by the familiar method of lowering a rope or cable. In casting about for an alternative method it was quite natural to hit upon the possibility of utilizing a sound-echo-time method. Unknown distances had frequently been ascertained by this method. Given the time elapsing between the injection of a sound into an oil well and the return of its echo from the fluid surface, and assuming the velocity of the sound to be about 1,100 feet per second, as it is in the open air, it would be easy to find the distance. Not only had this sound-echo-time method been long known and generally used to find unknown distances, but in 1898 Batcheller, in Patent No. 602,422, had described an apparatus to find a distance in a tubular space. Obviously an oil well is such a space. He described a device whereby the noise from a gun might be injected into a tube; the returning echoes from obstructions agitated a diaphragm, which in turn moved a stylus. The stylus recorded on a piece of paper a graph or diagram showing the variant movements of the diaphragm caused by its response to all the different echo waves.

In the late 1920's the oil industry began to experiment in the use of this same sound-echo-time method for measur- ing the distance to the fluid surface in deep oil wells. A product of this experimentation was the Lehr and Wyatt patent, upon which the present patent claims to be an improvement. It proposed to measure the distance by measuring the time of travel of the echo of 'an impulse wave' generated by a 'sudden change in pressure.' The apparatus described included a gas cylinder with a quick operating valve by means of which a short blast of gas could be injected into a well. It was stated in the patent that the time elapsing between the release of the gas and the return of the echo of the waves produced by it could be observed in any desired manner. But the patentee's application and drawings noted that the wave impulses could be recorded by use of a microphone which might include an amplifier and an appropriate device to record a picture of the wave impulses.

This Lehr and Wyatt patent, it is therefore apparent, simply provided an apparatus composed of old and well-known devices to measure the time required for pressure waves to move to and back from the fluid surface of an oil well. But the assumption that sound and pressure waves would travel in oil wells at open-air velocity of 1,100 feet per second proved to be erroneous. For this reason the timevelocity computation of Lehr and Wyatt for measuring the distance to the fluid surface produced inaccurate results.

After conferences with Lehr, Walker undertook to search for a method which would more accurately indicate the sound and pressure wave velocity in each well. Walker was familiar with the structure of oil wells. The oil flow pipe in a well, known as a tubing string, is jointed and where these joints occur there are collars or shoulders. There are also one or more relatively prominent projections on the oil flow pipe known as tubing catchers. In wells where the distance to the tubing catcher is known, Walker observed that the distance to the fluid surface could be measured by a simple time-distance proportion formula.4 For those wells in which the distance to the tubing catcher was unknown, Walker also suggested another idea. The sections of tubing pipe used in a given oil well are generally of equal length. Therefore the shoulders in a given well ordinarily are at equal intervals from each other. But the section length and therefore the interval may vary from well to well. Walker concluded that he could measure the unknown distance to the tubing catcher if he could observe and record the shoulder echo waves. Thus multiplication of the number of shoulders observed by the known length of a pipe section would produce the distance to the tubing catcher. With this distance, he could solve the distance to the fluid surface by the same proportion formula used when the distance to the tubing catcher was a matter of record. The Lehr and Wyatt instrument could record all these echo waves. But the potential usefulness of the echoes from the shoulders and the tubing catcher which their machine recorded had not occurred to Lehr and Wyatt and consequently they had made no effort better to observe and record them. Walker's contribution which he claims to be invention was in effect to add to Lehr and Wyatt's apparatus a well-known device which would make the regularly appearing shoulder echo waves more prominent on the graph and easier to count.

The device added was a mechanical acoustical resonator. This was a short pipe which would receive wave impulses at the mouth of the well. Walker's testimony was, and his specifications state, that by making the length of this tubal resonator one-third the length of the tubing joints, the resonator would serve as a tuner, adjusted to the frequency of the shoulder echo waves. It would simultaneously amplify these echo waves and eliminate unwanted echoes from other obstructions thus producing a clearer picture of the shoulder echo waves. His specifications show, attached to the tubal resonator, a coupler, the manipulation of which would adjust the length of the tube to one-third of the interval between shoulders in a particular well. His specifications and drawings also show the physical structure of a complete apparatus, designed to inject pressure impulses into a well, and to receive, note, record and time the impulse waves.

The District Court held the claims here in suit valid upon its finding that Walker's 'apparatus differs from and is an improvement over the prior art in the incorporation in such apparatus of a tuned acoustical means which performs the functions of a sound filter * * *.' The circuit court of appeals affirmed this holding, stating that the trial court had found 'that the only part of this patent constituting invention over the prior art is the 'tuned acoustical means which performs the functions of a sound filter."

For our purpose in passing upon the sufficiency of the claims against prohibited indefiniteness we can accept without ratifying the findings of the lower court that the addition of '(a) tuned acoustical means' performing the 'functions of a sound filter' brought about a new patentable combination, even though it advanced only a narrow step beyond Lehr and Wyatt's old combination. 5 We must, however, determine whether, as petitioner charges, the claims here held valid run afoul of Rev.Stat. § 4888 because they do not describe the invention but use 'conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty.' General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corporation supra, 304 U.S. at page 371, 58 S.Ct. at page 903, 82 L.Ed. 1402.

Walker, in some of his claims, e.g., claims 2 and 3, does describe the tuned acoustical pipe as an integral part of his invention, showing its structure, its working arrangement in the alleged new combination, and the manner of its connection with the other parts. But no one of the claims on which this judgment rests has even suggested...

To continue reading

Request your trial
191 cases
  • Spring-Air Co. v. Ragains
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 29 d1 Janeiro d1 1951
    ...workmanship, the courts closely scrutinize claims to combinations for improvements in a crowded art. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U. S. 1, 10, 67 S.Ct. 6, 91 L.Ed. 3; Hollywood-Maxwell Co. v. Streets of Tulsa, 10 Cir., 183 F.2d In summary, the court is convinced that pl......
  • De Burgh v. KINDEL FURNITURE COMPANY, Civ. A. No. 1598.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 19 d2 Outubro d2 1954
    ...workmanship, the courts closely scrutinize claims to combinations for improvements in a crowded art. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1, 10, 67 S.Ct. 6, 91 L.Ed. 3." See also Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 71 S.Ct. 127, 9......
  • Kaiser Industries Corporation v. McLouth Steel Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 2 d5 Agosto d5 1968
    ...penetration. In the case of an improvement patent, the United States Supreme Court stated in Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 6, 91 L.Ed. 3 (1946), that a patentee cannot obtain greater coverage for his patent by failing to describe his alleged invention th......
  • Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • 6 d5 Novembro d5 1987
    ...described in the specification and equivalents. See n. 2 ante. In 1946 the Court had held, Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1, 12, 67 S.Ct. 6, 11, 91 L.Ed. 3 (1946), that this form of claim was not limited to "actual equivalents" of the means disclosed, and therefo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Functional Claiming
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 7 d5 Fevereiro d5 2014
    ...only those means known to the inventors). 70 89 USPQ2d 1207, 2008 WL 5105055 (B.P.A.I. 2008). 71 2008 WL 5105055 at *1. 72 Id. at *10. 73 329 U.S. 1 74 Id. at 8. 75 Miyazaki, 2008 WL 5105055 at *12-13. 76 Id. at *13. 77 Id. at *14. 78 520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 79 Id. at 1375. 80 Ameri......
15 books & journal articles
  • Recalibrating Functional Claiming: A Way Forward
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-3, January 2020
    • 1 d3 Janeiro d3 2020
    ...with 35 U.S.C. 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 59 (Jan. 7, 2019) (same). 5. 56 U.S. 62, 112 (1853). 6. 439 F.2d 210, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1971). 7. 329 U.S. 1 (1946). 8. Id. at 9, 12. 9. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371–72 (1938). 10. Halliburton , 329 U.S. at 12. 11. 210 U.S. 405......
  • Composing the Law: An Interview with Derrick Wang, Creator of the Scalia/Ginsburg Opera
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-3, January 2020
    • 1 d3 Janeiro d3 2020
    ...with 35 U.S.C. 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 59 (Jan. 7, 2019) (same). 5. 56 U.S. 62, 112 (1853). 6. 439 F.2d 210, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1971). 7. 329 U.S. 1 (1946). 8. Id. at 9, 12. 9. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371–72 (1938). 10. Halliburton , 329 U.S. at 12. 11. 210 U.S. 405......
  • Have I Heard That Before? Copyright's Impact on Drawing Inspiration from Music's Past
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 12-3, January 2020
    • 1 d3 Janeiro d3 2020
    ...with 35 U.S.C. 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 59 (Jan. 7, 2019) (same). 5. 56 U.S. 62, 112 (1853). 6. 439 F.2d 210, 214 (C.C.P.A. 1971). 7. 329 U.S. 1 (1946). 8. Id. at 9, 12. 9. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371–72 (1938). 10. Halliburton , 329 U.S. at 12. 11. 210 U.S. 405......
  • The 'Essence' of an Invention Is as Important as the Claims
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 13-2, November 2020
    • 1 d0 Novembro d0 2020
    ...32. E.g. , Litton Sys., Inc., v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 33. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1, 8 (1946). 34. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Clearstream Wastewater Sys., Inc. v. Hydro-Ac......
  • 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