In re Sweetland
Decision Date | 05 April 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 1760.,1760. |
Citation | 12 F.2d 163 |
Parties | In re SWEETLAND. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Nelson Littell and W. H. Kenyon, both of New York City, and J. H. Milans and C. T. Milans, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for Commissioner of Patents.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and SMITH, Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.
Ernest J. Sweetland on July 3, 1920, filed an application in the United States Patent Office, praying for letters patent to a lubricating system combining a means for forcing or conveying, from internal combustion engines to a purifying chamber, lubricating oils befouled with dirt, metal particles, carbon sediment, and other foreign matter, a means in the purifying chamber for filtering the oil and cleaning it of its impurities, and a means for returning the filtered or purified oil to the engine or crank case from which the turbid oil was taken. The filter member of the combination is a pressure filter, and consists of a fluid-tight case inclosing a plurality of filter surfaces upon which is gradually deposited a carbonaceous slime as the contaminated oil is forced through them. Additional deposits of slime are made on the filtering surfaces as the filtration proceeds thereby increasing the efficiency of the filters.
The Examiner held that the claims of Sweetland's application were not patentable, and on appeal to the Board of Examiners that decision was affirmed. The First Assistant Commissioner sustained the Board of Examiners, and from his decision this appeal was taken. Claims 1, 3, and 21 are illustrative of the combination claims involved in the appeal and are as follows:
The decisions of the Patent Office were mainly based on patent No. 1,339,769, issued to John Sherman Leigh, which discloses a device for the removal, during the operation of internal combustion...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weckerly v. Coe
...considered carefully all the points relied upon by appellants and find them to be without merit. Affirmed. 1 See In re Sweetland, 56 App.D.C. 222, 223, 12 F.2d 163, 164; Willett Mfg. Co. v. Root Spring Scraper Co., 6 Cir., 55 F.2d 858; Western Willite Co. v. Trinidad Asphalt Mfg. Co., 8 Cir......
- McGrath v. Burke