Nordell v. International Filter Co., 7323
| Decision Date | 21 March 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 7323,7324.,7323 |
| Citation | 119 F.2d 948 |
| Parties | NORDELL et al. v. INTERNATIONAL FILTER CO. CHICAGO PUMP CO. v. SAME. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Franklin M. Warden, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Warren C. Horton and Casper W. Ooms, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
Before SPARKS, MAJOR, and KERNER, Circuit Judges.
In cause No. 7323 appellees charged appellant with infringement of the Nordell patent No. 1,948,125, of which appellee Nordell is the owner, and appellee Chicago Pump Company is the exclusive licensee. This patent was issued February 20, 1934, on an application filed April 11, 1932. In cause No. 7324 appellee charged appellant with infringement of the Durdin patent No. 1,960,303. This patent was issued May 29, 1934, on an application filed December 19, 1932. The defenses were invalidity and non-infringement. The two suits were consolidated for trial, and the court found each of the claims relied upon valid and infringed. From those decrees these appeals are prosecuted.
Both patents relate to screens for straining solids from liquids, and we shall discuss them in the order referred to.
The object of the Nordell patent is to provide a screen having continuous openings therein, whereby the openings are constantly kept clear, thereby eliminating any possibility of clogging. The disclosure consists of a screen composed of a multiplicity of ring-like units secured together and suitably spaced apart to provide continuous openings, in combination with cleaning means entering the spaces between the units. One of the elements is rotated relative to the other, whereby the spaces between the rings are constantly kept free from the material which is being separated from the water, and which ordinarily collects in the screen openings. The screen units are secured together by means of a hub within the hollow of the screen, which is connected with one end thereof. These ring-like units have means on their exterior for breaking up solid material which is carried to the screen.
The drawings disclose an influent channel through which the unscreened water is conveyed to the screen, and an effluent channel through which the screened water is conveyed away. The latter leads from and is located below the former, and is connected thereto through an opening which is protected by the screen device upon which the patent was granted. At the end of the influent channel is a pocket wherein the trash and other solid material is deposited and from which it is removed by suitable mechanism (not shown).
Supported upon the bottom wall of the influent channel is a standard which is formed with a bearing bracket overhanging the opening into the effluent channel, which contains bearings for the screen shaft. Extending over and fitted into this opening is an annular base which is formed as a part of the standard. The screen extends upward from this annular base and rotates therein.
The bearing bracket projects down into the hollow of the screen, and is provided with a hub secured to the screen shaft directly below the lower end of the bearing bracket.
The screen is driven from any suitable source of power, and is preferably composed of a plurality of ring-like screen units spaced apart by washers and secured together by long bolts and nuts. The washers are located inwardly some distance from the peripheral edges of the screen units, so as to leave free annular spaces outwardly of the washers into which extend teeth of a comb which is bolted or otherwise secured to the standard.
The sides of the screen units are preferably parallel with each other for some distance inward from the periphery, and the teeth of the comb are fitted to the free spaces and serve to clear them from any material that might tend to lodge or collect therein. The uppermost screen unit is formed with a spider which extends down into the hollow of the screen where its arms are united to the hub.
In operation, the screen is rotated and the water passes through the spaces between the screen units into the hollow of the screen where it is discharged downwardly into the effluent channel. The water is not permitted to enter the screen through its open top, and any solid matter which is too large to pass through the spaces between the screen units discharges into the pocket from which it is removed by any suitable means (not shown). Claims 2, 3 and 4 of this patent are in issue.1
These claims are quite broad. Claim 2 will read upon any screen comprised of (1) any kind of a rotatable straining wall, having openings therein of a predetermined size, and (2) any kind of submerged comminuting means, which is carried in part, and in any manner, by the straining wall. Claim 3 differs from claim 2 in that the straining wall must be cylindrical, and part of the comminuting means must be mounted on the exterior of the cylindrical straining wall, in some undesignated manner, and the other part of the comminuting means must be stationarily mounted at some undesignated place and in some undesignated manner. Claim 4 is a method of straining out solids from liquids in a flowing stream and comminuting them below the surface of the stream. It is broader than the apparatus claims.
Each of the claims provides that the comminuted particles shall pass through the openings of the straining wall along with the flow of the liquid. It is obvious that these claims are intended to cover any conceivable combination of a straining wall with comminuting means below the surface of the water, and the primary advantage of the entire disclosure is to avoid the removal, by hand or otherwise, of the obstructive materials which tend to clog the screen.
It seems to be conceded that appellees' commercial structure is quite meritorious, and it unquestionably reads upon these claims. However, it is not the same device as described in the specification of this patent. Appellees, by license or otherwise, have several patents which, so far as we are able to discern, have claims which cover every conceivable beneficial element of their commercial device, and they are not here in question.
It is obvious that this litigation is merely an effort to sustain the broadest claims of the patent, which as we have said, cover about every conceivable method for the comminution of solids in water without removing them. This conclusion is supported by the remarks of Nordell to the Examiner: "The idea of providing means to break up or comminute and intercept solids so that they will pass through the screen along with the flow of liquids appears wholly novel." Again he stated to the Examiner:
We think it is clear from this record that Nordell was not the first to comminute solids under the surface of the sewage, thus permitting the reduced pieces to pass through the screen along with the flow of the water. There was considerable prior art not cited by the Examiner, which we think is quite pertinent. Among this prior art were certain German publications which clearly described the comminution of solids in liquids without removing the solids from the stream. Appellees raise the technical objection that in the translation of these publications the translator erred in translating each of the two German words to mean comminution. The authorities cited do not support appellees' contention in this respect. United States patents No. 108,664 to Wigner, and No. 1,449,622 to Peck, clearly disclose the comminution of solids under the surface of the water. This accomplishment was precisely what Nordell told the Examiner was new in the art, and there can be no presumption of validity over this prior art which the Examiner did not note. We are here confronted with a strange doctrine, that the fact that the Examiner did not mention this art raised no presumption that he did not see it and consider it. But on the other hand, appellees urge that it raises a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delco Chemicals v. Cee-Bee Chemical Co.
...326 U.S. 773, 66 S.Ct. 232, 90 L.Ed. 467; Himmel Bros. Co. v. Serrick Corp., 7 Cir., 1941, 122 F.2d 740, 745; Nordell v. International Filter Co., 7 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 948, 950; National Elec. Products Corp. v. Grossman, 2 Cir., 1934, 70 F.2d 257, 258; R. Hoe & Co. v. Goss Printing Press ......
-
Kawneer Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
...O'Leary v. Liggett Drug Co., 6 Cir., 150 F.2d 656, certiorari denied 326 U.S. 773, 66 S.Ct. 232, 90 L.Ed. 467; Nordell v. International Filter Co., 7 Cir., 119 F.2d 948; R. Hoe & Co., Inc., v. Goss Printing Press Co., 2 Cir., 30 F.2d 271; Reynolds v. Emaus, supra, 87 F.Supp. at page 453; De......
-
Reynolds v. Emaus
...by the examiner. There can be no presumption of validity over this prior art which the examiner did not consider. Nordell v. International Filter Co., 7 Cir., 119 F.2d 948. The Congress has not established any tests as a basis for determining invention, and it is, therefore, necessary to lo......
-
Wham-O-Mfg. Co. v. Paradise Manufacturing Co.
...issued May 13, 1943). We do not understand how this omission could in any way affect the presumption. In Nordell v. International Filter Co., 119 F.2d 948 (7th Cir. 1949) and Himmel Bros. Co. v. Serrick Corp., 122 F.2d 740 (7th Cir. 1941), cases relied upon by the defendant, it appeared tha......