Pacific States Elec. Co. v. Wright
| Decision Date | 09 January 1922 |
| Docket Number | 3715. |
| Parties | PACIFIC STATES ELECTRIC CO. v. WRIGHT. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Raymond Ives Blakeslee, of Los Angeles, Cal., and John P. Bartlett of New York City, for appellant.
Frederick S. Lyon and Leonard S. Lyon, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.
The appellee is the patentee of letters patent 1,214,486, issued January 30, 1917, for 'electric cooking apparatus,' stating in his specification that his invention relates to improvements in electric heating apparatus, more particularly to be used for grilling and waffle baking purposes, but which may be also used for any purpose of the ordinary electrically heated stove, and which may be folded up so as to occupy a small space when not in use, and which provides a large heating surface when unfolded. One of the objects of the invention, as declared in the specification, was:
'To provide a device of the kind that may be quickly converted from one use to a different use, as from a waffle iron to a grill, or to a device providing a large heating surface when required.'
And the specification declared the principal parts of the invention to be:
'The base or grill member a (shown upon the drawings accompanying the specification), the lower waffle member b, and the upper waffle member c.'
After stating that the waffle member b is preferably made of aluminum, and may be of any shape desired, but that the patentee's preferred construction is an oblong rectangular shape, the specification proceeds to describe at length both of the waffle members and their connection, as also the wires for the electrical heating and the insulating material, and concludes the specification with the statement:
'Although I have described my improvements with considerable detail and with respect to certain particular forms of my invention, I do not desire to be limited to such details since many changes and modifications may well be made without departing from the spirit and scope of my invention in its broadest aspect.'
The first five claims related to and covered the grill member of the invention and are not for consideration, since it was only the last four claims which were adjudged by the court below to have been infringed by the appellant. Those claims are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Bulldog Elec. Prod. Co.
...Co., C.C.S.D.N.Y., 139 F. 393, affirmed 2 Cir., 147 F. 243; O. H. Jewell Filter Co. v. Jackson, 8 Cir., 140 F. 340; Pacific States Electric Co. v. Wright, 9 Cir., 277 F. 756. The circuit breakers shown and described in the Swingle patent, being substantially different from and failing to su......
-
Magnavox Co. v. Hart & Reno
...& Willard Mfg. Co. v. Union Tool Co., 249 F. 729, 731, certiorari denied, 248 U. S. 559, 39 S. Ct. 6, 63 L. Ed. 421; Pacific States Electric Co. v. Wright, 277 F. 756, 758; Overlin v. Dallas Machine & Locomotive Works, 297 F. 7, 12; International Harvester Co. v. Killefer Mfg. Co., 67 F.(2d......
-
Reinharts v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
...supra. Decisions cited by appellant Broadway Towel Supply Co. v. Brown-Meyer Co. (C. C.A.9) 245 F. 659, 661; Pacific States Electric Co. v. Wright (C.C.A.9) 277 F. 756, 758; Pray v. Copes (C.C.A.9) 1 F.(2d) 927, 928; Dunkley Co. v. Central California Canneries (C.C.A.9) 7 F.(2d) 972, 975; T......
-
Blanchard v. JL Pinkerton, Inc.
...S.Ct. 837, 840, 39 L.Ed. 973. And see, McClain v. Ortmayer, 1891, 141 U.S. 419, 425, 12 S.Ct. 76, 35 L.Ed. 800; Pacific States Electric Co. v. Wright, 9 Cir., 1922, 277 F. 756; Keystone Driller Co. v. Northwest Engineering Corp., 1935, 294 U.S. 42, 55 S.Ct. 262, 79 L.Ed. 747; Paraffine Cos.......