Imperial Brass Mfg. Co. v. Nelson
Decision Date | 07 January 1913 |
Docket Number | 1,936. |
Citation | 203 F. 484 |
Parties | IMPERIAL BRASS MFG. CO. v. NELSON. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois; Arthur L Sanborn, Judge.
Suit in equity by the Imperial Brass Manufacturing Company against Alexander Nelson, doing business under the name of A. Nelson Manufacturing Company. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.
For opinion below, see 194 F. 165.
PATENTS (s 328*)-- ANTICIPATION-- COMPRESSION PIPE COUPLING.
The Burgess patent, No. 906,099, for a compression pipe coupling held void for anticipation by a device in all practical respects the same, known and in public use prior to the application of the patentee.
George E. Waldo, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Arthur F. Durand, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before BAKER, SEAMAN, and KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judges.
Appellant herein termed complainant, filed its bill to enjoin infringement of claims 3 and 4 of patent No. 906,099, granted to W. S. burgess on December 8, 1908, for a compression coupling, of which patent complainant was, by due assignment the owner. The invention covers a union or coupling for firmly connecting the ends of pipes or rods to each other, or to any desired structure, without solder or brazing. The claims sued on read as follows, viz.:
On the hearing, the court found for the defendant, and dismissed the bill for want of equity. From the claims, specification, and drawings, it will be seen that the component parts of the device of the patent in suit are a male and female coupling member and a tapered sleeve or ring as follows, viz.:
(Image Omitted)
These may be termed, respectively, a nut 'A,' a cone 'b,' and a nipple 'c.'
Drawing 2 of the patent is as follows, viz.:
(Image Omitted)
At line 96, col. 2, p. 1, of the specification, it is said:
It is evident that the device of the claims in suit does not include the pipes or rods to be coupled, since it is for a means of effecting the coupling, and not for a coupled set of pipes or rods, so that the groove in the pipe is no part of the patent. Complainant's expert was asked on cross-examination (X.Q. 80):
'And does that coupling structure include the indented pipe?'
His answer was:
'I do not so understand, but merely that it is a coupling to be applied to a pipe in the manner described, and so as to indent it, if desired.'
Manifestly, therefore, Fig. 2 above shows an application of the patent to the parts to be coupled.
Appellee (termed defendant herein) interposes the defenses of want of validity and of infringement. The answer sets up a great many prior patents, of which we need consider only the following, viz.: Patent No. 91,319, granted to J. J. Fifield on June 15, 1869, for a pipe coupling. In this device, the nut 'D,' the tapering ring-wedge or cone 'b,' and the nipple 'c' are shown. The specification at line 13, col. 1, p. 1, reads:
Commencing at line 1, col. 2, p. 1, it is said:
Figure 2 of the drawings is as follows:
(Image Omitted)
Patent No. 181,714, granted to H. Pennie, August 29, 1876, for pipe and hose coupling. 'this invention,' says the inventor at line 11, col. 1, p. 1--
'relates to a new mechanism for firmly connecting two pieces of lead pipe, rubber hose, or other soft tubing; and consists, principally, in effecting the desired result by means of an outer soft-metal shell or sleeve, which is pressed into the soft pipe or tube; also, in the arrangement of mechanism for pressing the ends of said shell or sleeve into or against the pieces of pipe to be joined, all as hereinafter more fully described.'
This device has the sleeve or cone with soft tapered and reduced ends and hard middle portion. It also has coupling nuts with conical extensions differing in angle from that of the tapering ends of the cone or sleeve, whereby, when the nut is advanced upon the sleeve or cone, the reduced or tapered ends of the latter are compressed and sunk into the pipes to be coupled with such force as to insure their permanent connection with the sleeve or cone, and produce a tight joint. This patent also calls for the process.
Fig. 2 of the patent is as follows:
(Image Omitted)
Patent No. 275,193, granted to L. Grannan, April 3, 1883, for packing for valve-stems. The patentee provides for the coupling nut, the pipes to be connected, an inclosed annular recess formed around the valve-stem, into which he inserts a soft metal ring shaped like two hollow cones with joined bases, making a double cone which slips over the valve stem.
'by thus tapering the outside of the ring F from the center to each end of the same, a comparatively thin edge b is made thereon at such end that will fit around the valve-stem.'
At line 62, col. 2, p. 1, (Record, p. 471) it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Twentieth Century Machinery Co. v. Loew Mfg. Co.
... ... Justice Story on the circuit; Allen v. Steele (C.C.) 64 F ... 793, 795, 796; Imperial Brass Mfg. Co. v. Nelson (C.C.) 194 ... F. 165, 167, affirmed 203 F. 484, 499, 121 C.C.A. 606 ... ...
-
Application of Schlittler
...11,645, 1 Story 590, 599; Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120, 21 L.Ed. 821; Stitt v. Eastern R. Co., C.C., 22 F. 649, 650; Imperial Brass Mfg. Co. v. Nelson, 7 Cir., 203 F. 484; and Buser v. Novelty Tufting Machine Co., 6 Cir., 151 F. 478. In Coffin v. Ogden, supra, the court said: "* * * The in......
-
Block v. Nathan Anklet Support Co., 371.
...Cas. No. 11,645; Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120, 21 L. Ed. 821; Stitt v. Eastern R. R. Co. (C. C.) 22 F. 649; Imperial Brass Co. v. Nelson, 203 F. 484, 121 C. C. A. 606 (C. C. A. 7); Buser v. Novelty Co., 151 F. 478, 81 C. C. A. 16 (C. C. A. 6). All this is very old law, though it is by no m......