Lovejoy v. Shultz
Decision Date | 07 May 1928 |
Docket Number | No. 2037.,2037. |
Citation | 1928 CD 180,58 App. DC 190,26 F.2d 562 |
Parties | LOVEJOY v. SHULTZ. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
F. A. Tennant, of Boston, Mass., and C. E. Riordon, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
J. S. Powers, of Buffalo, N. Y., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
Shultz is the senior party. Lovejoy, the junior party, denies that Shultz is entitled to make the counts of the interference, claiming that the Shultz structure, as disclosed in the application, is inoperative and utterly lacking in usefulness.
The issue is stated in four counts, of which count 1 is illustrative, reading as follows, to wit:
It thus appears that the invention relates to an improvement in automobile shock absorbers of the hydraulic reciprocating piston type. Such a shock absorber consists of a casing containing a cylinder and a fluid reservoir, separated from one another by a partition, but intercommunicating at the top. A piston with a downward skirt moves in the cylinder, and its action is in some measure regulated or controlled by two valve-equipped ports located between the cylinder and the fluid reservoir. One of the ports freely permits the flow of the fluid from the reservoir into the cylinder, but automatically prevents a reverse flow of the fluid; whereas, the other, by means of a spring-regulated valve, permits the fluid to flow from the cylinder to the reservoir. The piston is attached by a projecting arm to the axle of the car, and the casing is attached to the car's body; accordingly the regulation of the relative movements of the piston and casing serves to absorb the shocks produced by sharp depressions or elevations in the roadway.
Shultz sought to improve upon this...
To continue reading
Request your trial