Keszthelyi v. Doheny Stone Drill Co.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 6688.,6688. |
| Citation | 59 F.2d 3 |
| Parties | KESZTHELYI v. DOHENY STONE DRILL CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Charles C. Montgomery and Fred Mansur, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Wellborn & Wellborn and William L. Connor, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a final decree of the District Court in favor of appellees in a suit in equity for infringement of letters patent No. 1,474,905 issued to appellant on November 20, 1923, for a new and useful improvement in tool joints used in rotary drilling of oil wells.
In his patent specifications appellant explains that in rotary drilling the bit cutting the formation is carried at the lower end of the string of drill pipe; that in order to withdraw the bit for sharpening or replacement, it is necessary to pull up the drill pipe, uncoupling it at intervals usually of three or four lengths of the pipe, for convenience in handling; that it is therefore necessary to provide a tool joint at such intervals to prevent injuring the threads of the pipe by frequent coupling and uncoupling; that one of the operations in rotary drilling is to pump a stream of mud laden fluid down through the drill pipe and through the bit, and to do this it is necessary to apply considerable pressure at the upper end of the drill pipe so that in the ordinary type of tool joint it is difficult to insure tight joints which will withstand the pressure necessarily applied; that tool joints as ordinarily constructed, consist of a pair of steel collars, one of which is screwed upon each of the contracting ends of the drill pipe, using the threads with which the pipe is ordinarily provided; that one of the collars has a pipe or pin with a steep taper and coarse threads and the other collar having a box into which this pipe or pin is threaded; that it is the common practice to set up these tool joints by the use of the power driven rotary table so that the friction on the threads between the box and the pin is very great, sometimes causing the box to spread so that it is not an uncommon thing for the joints to become loose or even unscrewed. The objects of the patent in suit as stated by appellant in his specifications are "to provide a novel form of tool joint in which the friction on the threads is not entirely depended upon to hold the joint together but supplemental frictional means are provided for this purpose" and "to provide auxiliary means of insuring a tight joint at all times."
The following drawing, being Fig. 1 in the patent, shows a form of appellant's device most nearly like that of the appellees:
The commercial application of the patented device is shown by the following photographs, the first showing the couplings connected and the second showing them separated:
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
In appellant's patent he describes his device with reference to Fig. 1 as follows:
The claims of the patent are as follows:
(Italics ours.)
The other claims are not here involved.
Although appellant's patent drawings show a space (16") and the specifications refer to it, nowhere in the patent is the purpose thereof explained, nor is such space made the subject of a claim, unless, as appellant contends, the claim of a "fluid tight relationship" necessarily carries with it as a part of the claim the showing in the specifications and drawings as to such space and the idea of the wedging action. Rev. St. § 4888, 38 Stat. 958, 35 USCA § 33, provides as follows: "Before any inventor or discoverer shall receive a patent for his invention or discovery he shall make application therefor * * * and he shall particularly point out and distinctly claim the part, improvement, or combination which he claims as his invention or discovery."
The law is well settled that, although the claims of a patent may be construed and interpreted by reference to the drawings and specifications, they may not thereby be enlarged. Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Greenleaf, 117 U. S. 554, 6 S. Ct. 846, 29 L. Ed. 952; White v. Dunbar, 119 U. S. 47, 7 S. Ct. 72, 30 L. Ed. 303; Howe Machine Co. v. National Needle Co., 134 U. S. 388, 10 S. Ct. 570, 33 L. Ed. 963; McCarty v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 160 U. S. 110, 16 S. Ct. 240, 40 L. Ed. 358.
We agree with the trial court that claim of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pevely Dairy Co. v. Borden Printing Co., 9744.
...is unimportant, for mere change in size does not constitute invention. Klein v. Seattle, 9 Cir., 77 F. 200, 204; Keszthelyi v. Doheny Stone Drill Co., 9 Cir., 59 F.2d 3, 8; Oliver-Sherwood Co. v. Patterson-Ballagh Corp., 9 Cir., 95 F.2d 70, 74. The adaptations, if any, shown by Wasser are t......
-
Mills v. Coe
...Co. v. Bobbitt, 8 Cir., 70 F.2d 416, 423; Sage v. Parkersburg Rig & Reel Co., 10 Cir., 80 F.2d 954, 957. See, also, Keszthelyi v. Doheny Stone Drill Co., 9 Cir., 59 F.2d 3. 2 Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 43 S. Ct. 322, 67 L.Ed. 523; The Barbed Wire Patent......
-
Shaffer v. Armer
...by the use of a relatively small deposit of weld metal. Cf. In re Scherl, 33 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1193, 156 F.2d 72; Keszthelyi v. Doheny Stone Drill Co., 9 Cir., 59 F.2d 3. Deciding whether an alleged invention is the product of inventive genius or mere mechanical skill in the art is usually......
-
Schick Service v. Jones
...claims valid,3 for they do not constitute invention within patent law requirements. As stated by this circuit in Keszthelyi v. Doheny Stone Drill Co. et al., 59 F.2d 3, 8, "A mere difference or change in the mechanical construction in the size or form of the thing used, in order to obviate ......