Mason Corporation v. Halliburton
| Decision Date | 02 May 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 2113.,2113. |
| Citation | 118 F.2d 729 |
| Parties | MASON CORPORATION et al. v. HALLIBURTON et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
A. A. Davidson, of Tulsa, Okl. (Eldon J. Dick and Sam Clammer, both of Tulsa, Okl., on the brief), for appellants.
Earl Babcock, of Duncan, Okl. (Ben F. Saye, of Duncan, Okl., on the brief), for appellees.
Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON, and HUXMAN, Circuit Judges.
The Mason Corporation and Richard C. Mason brought this suit against Erle P. Halliburton and Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company for alleged infringement of patent No. 1,408,113 applied for January 28, 1921, and granted February 28, 1922, to Richard C. Mason. The defenses were invalidity and noninfringement.
The patent in suit covers a well measuring device. It comprises a rectangular-shaped frame mounted on the upper end of the well casing. One side of the frame is convex and attached on the inside thereof is a U-shaped bracket. The upper and lower ends of the frame are formed with aligned recesses for the reception of the well cable or any other suitable measuring line. A pair of spaced parallel bearing plates are secured at their ends to the opposite edges of the end pieces of the frame. Three axles are mounted in the bearing plates. Three measuring pulleys aligned vertically are mounted on these axles. A sprocket wheel is rigidly mounted on each of such axles and the sprocket wheels are engaged by a continuous sprocket chain which causes all the measuring pulleys to rotate together in the same direction. The end of the axle carrying the intermediate measuring pulley is extended through one of the bearing plates and is adapted to be connected with the operating member of a length-indicating register.
Between the bracket and the measuring pulleys, two guide plates are secured at their ends to the opposite edges of the end pieces of the frame. A triangular-shaped sliding block is mounted between these members. Two tensioning pulleys, positioned in the same vertical plane as the measuring pulleys, are mounted on axles carried by the sliding block, one tensioning pulley being intermediate of the center and upper measuring pulley, and the other being intermediate of the center and lower measuring pulley. The measuring line travels between the measuring pulleys and the tensioning pulleys through the grooves thereof. The sliding block is movable by means of a screw extending through the side piece of the frame and the bracket. The outer end of the screw is rigidly attached to an operating crank. The inner end of the screw is attached to the block. By turning the crank the tensioning pulleys may be advanced toward the measuring pulleys urging the cable or measuring line into engagement with the measuring pulleys. By adjusting the screw any desired tension of the line on the measuring pulleys may be obtained.
A coil spring mounted on the screw is confined between an annular member securely connected to the screw at a point where it extends through the bracket, and the adjacent edge of the sliding block. This provides a yieldable driving connection between the screw and the block so that the tension will yield when an enlargement of the cable or measuring line passes through the grooves of the measuring and tensioning pulleys.
The measuring line is lowered into the hole by means of a weight at the end thereof and through the force of the gravity. As the measuring line descends, the measuring pulleys rotate, registering the length in the measuring device. The tension is necessary in order to stop the downward movement of the measuring line when the weight reaches the bottom of the hole.
The patent in suit contains five claims. The elements of the claims are set out in note 1.1
The alleged infringing device is manufactured under patent No. 1,692,037, applied for June 15, 1926, and issued November 20, 1928, to E. P. Halliburton.
It comprises a reel on which piano wire is coiled. The open end of the wire is provided with a weight. The reel is mounted on a post. A horizontal arm is pivotally mounted at the upper end of the post. At the end of the arm nearest the well, the upper end of a vertical bracket is connected pivotally to permit oscillation of the bracket. The measuring wheel is mounted on this bracket. By means of the pivotally mounted arm and bracket the measuring wheel maintains itself in proper alignment with the wire in any direction it may travel as the unwinding of the wire from the reel occurs. The measuring wire travels from the reel under and around the periphery of the measuring wheel in the groove thereof and thence upward from the measuring wheel and over a guide pulley mounted on the upper end of the casing or tubing and thence downward through the casing into the well. The shaft of the measuring wheel is connected with the operating member of a length-indicating register. Two pressure rollers are mounted on the bracket, one positioned above and one below the measuring wheel and in alignment therewith. Tension is effected by urging the pressure rollers against the measuring wire in the groove of the measuring wheel. The shafts of the pressure wheels are carried in movable blocks mounted in guide slots and movable toward or away from the measuring wheel. The outer side of each block has an inclined face which is engaged by the inclined face of a wedge block. These wedge blocks are mounted on adjusting screws. By turning the screw, the wedge blocks may be moved forward forcing the movable blocks in the direction of the measuring wheel and causing the pressure rollers to engage the wire in the measuring wheel. The tension may be relieved by turning the screw in the opposite direction, and thus any desired tension may be obtained.
From a judgment adjudging the patent valid, but not infringed, the Mason Corporation and Mason have appealed.
The conception of a device for measuring wells by means of a measuring line and a measuring wheel connected with a registering device, was not new when the patent in suit was applied for. It was disclosed by Hudson patent No. 757,810, issued April 19, 1904.
Neither was a combination of the above elements with a tension means new. Hudson discloses pressure pulleys, the axles of which are carried by clamp frames mounted on the main frame. The pressure pulleys are mounted in alignment with the measuring pulley which is positioned intermediate of the pressure pulleys. The axles of the pressure pulleys extend through transverse slots in the main frame. A cam lever is attached to the upper end of each clamp frame. By forcing the cam lever downward, the axle of the pressure pulley may be moved in its slot toward the measuring line, causing the line to travel in an are instead of a straight line and forcing it into engagement with the measuring wheel. By moving the cam lever upward, the axle is freed to move in the opposite direction and the tension is relieved.
The Boatwright patent No. 530,385, issued December 4, 1894, discloses a measuring wheel, the axle of which is operatively connected with the registering device. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCullough Tool Company v. Well Surveys, Inc., 6952-6956.
...and liberal range of equivalence and it is not to be limited to the precise device and instrumentality disclosed. Mason Corporation v. Halliburton, 10 Cir., 118 F.2d 729; Priebe & Sons Co. v. Hunt, 8 Cir., 188 F.2d 880, cert. dismissed, 342 U.S. 801, 72 S.Ct. 92, 96 L. Ed. 607. A combinatio......
-
Priebe & Sons Co. v. Hunt
...certiorari denied, 308 U.S. 624, 60 S.Ct. 380, 84 L.Ed. 521; Flowers v. Austin-Western Co., 7 Cir., 149 F.2d 955; Mason Corporation v. Halliburton, 10 Cir., 118 F.2d 729. We think the finding is sustained by abundant evidence. This device performed a function never successfully performed by......
-
Turner v. Goldstein
...Co. v. Autosteam Process Co., 7 Cir., 70 F.2d 959, 961. 3 Callison v. Dean, 10 Cir., 70 F.2d 55, 58. 4 Mason Corporation v. Halliburton, 10 Cir., 118 F.2d 729, 731. 5 Johns-Manville Corp. v. National Tank Seal Co., 10 Cir., 49 F.2d 142, 145; Skinner Bros. Belting Co. v. Oil Well Improvement......
-
Trico Products Corporation v. Delman Company
...range of equivalents of a patent cannot be extended to cover means which have clear antecedents in the prior art. Mason Corp. v. Halliburton, 10 Cir., 1941, 118 F.2d 729. Defendants' devices cannot, therefore, be treated as infringing The court concludes that claims 4, 5, 12, 25 and 35 of t......