Price-Trawick v. Gas Lift Corporation
| Citation | 101 F.2d 134 |
| Decision Date | 24 January 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 8921.,8921. |
| Parties | PRICE-TRAWICK, Inc., v. GAS LIFT CORPORATION. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Robt. E. Barry and Armand A. Cyr, both of Washington, D. C., A. Leslie Jackson, of Dallas, Tex., and Charles M. McKnight, of Tulsa, Okl., for appellant.
J. Vincent Martin, of Houston, Tex., and Prentice Wilson, of Dallas, Tex., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from a decree dismissing appellant's bill for an injunction against infringement of Letters Patent No. 1,793,193, issued to Frederick Price. The decree sustained the validity of the patent but dismissed the bill for want of infringement. The patent is for an apparatus for starting the flow of flowing wells, and, in view of the prior art, only a part of the fifth and last claim need be considered on this appeal.
The principal use of the devices under consideration is in producing oil from wells in which the natural or rock pressure is not sufficient to cause the oil to flow to the surface. Normally, an oil well consists of a large pipe, called a casing, extending from the surface of the land to the oil-bearing stratum. A flow-tube or pipe is disposed within the casing, extending to a point well below the level to which the oil rises under natural pressure. The space between the casing and the tube is sealed at the top, so that gas or air may be introduced under pressure. In shallow wells, or wells in which rock pressure brings the oil near the surface, production may be obtained by simply increasing the pressure in the casing outside the tube until the level of the oil is forced downward to the bottom of the tube. At this point, the gas begins to flow up through the oil in the tube, producing bubbles or alternate columns of air and gas, or both. The oil thus displaced rises in the tube, and, the weight not being increased, the pressure causes it to flow from the well.
Where oil is to be produced from a great depth, the pressure necessary to start and maintain the flow causes great strain upon the casing and requires large and expensive machinery. To avoid these difficulties, gas-flow valves have been developed to admit gas from the casing to the tube at predetermined pressures. These valves are spaced along the tube at intervals, and operate by closing when the differential in pressure between the casing and tube has increased due to the absence of the proper quantity of oil in the tube above the valve.
In the original Price application, claim was made for a method of flowing wells. The claims were subsequently amended to cover the valve therein specified as an apparatus. Claim 5 recites a valve stem with two convex valves disposed thereon with convexities adjacent, so disposed that a double faced concave valve seat, fixed in the walls of the tube, is interposed between them with an opening through which the valve stem passes and through which the gas flows from the casing into the tube. The claim recites means yieldingly holding the valve in position and allowing the same to wabble with relation to its seat, whereby it is allowed to assume any position necessary to seat itself under pressure.
The means, yieldingly holding the valve in place and allowing the same to wabble, are described in the specifications of the patent, and illustrated by appellant's exhibits introduced in evidence in the district court, as a flat or single leaf spring disposed outside the tube and extending parallel with the axis thereof to a point opposite the opening therein in which the valve seat is inserted, and joined to the valve stem by a flat-head screw passing through a hole in the spring and engaging the valve stem, but not being screwed into the stem a sufficient distance to bind the spring. Thus, we have a simple mathematical statement, avoiding the use of functions, that the ratio of the radius of the head of the screw to the length of the valve stem is the same as the ratio of one-half of the length of the screw from its head to the valve stem, less the thickness of the spring, to the distance the end of the valve stem may be varied from the perpendicular to the surface of the spring. Assuming values of one-fourth of an inch for the radius, one inch for the length of the valve stem, and one-sixteenth of an inch for one-half of the length of the screw from its head to the valve stem, less the thickness of the spring, we have a distance of one-fourth of an inch possible variation from the perpendicular; or, since the variation is in both or all directions, the above values allow a total movement in any plane (perpendicular to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JR Clark Co. v. Murray Metal Products Co.
...to any range of equivalency such as would bring the defendant's structure within the terms of such a claim. Price Trawick, Inc., v. Gas Lift, 5 Cir., 1939, 101 F.2d 134; Hughes v. Magnolia Pet. Co., 5 Cir., 1937, 88 F.2d 817; Texas Rubber & Specialty Corp. v. D. & M. Machine, 5 Cir., 1936, ......
-
Bryan v. Sid W. Richardson, Inc.
...Oil Tools, Inc., 5 Cir., 205 F.2d 660, footnote 3, p. 662; Bryan v. Garrett Oil Tools, Inc., 5 Cir., 245 F.2d 365; Price-Trawick, Inc., v. Gas Lift Corp., 5 Cir., 101 F.2d 134; and United States Industries, Inc., v. Otis Engineering Corporation, 5 Cir., 254 F.2d As these cases illustrate, g......
-
US Industries, Inc. v. Camco, Incorporated, 17671.
...1957, 245 F.2d 365; Guiberson Corp. v. Garrett Oil Tools, Inc., 5 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 660, 662, footnote 3; Price-Trawick, Inc. v. Gas Lift Corp., 5 Cir., 1939, 101 F.2d 134. 2 King 2,339,487 issued January 18, 3 Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 13 have thus far been challenged and sustaine......
-
Georgia Kaolin Company v. Thiele Kaolin Company, 15401.
...Co. v. Shell Oil Co., 5 Cir., 166 F.2d 384; Aluminum Co. of America v. Thompson Products, 6 Cir., 122 F.2d 796; Price-Trawick, Inc., v. Gas Lift Corporation, 5 Cir., 101 F.2d 134; Cf. Southern States Equipment Corp. v. USCO Power Equipment Corp., 5 Cir., 209 F.2d 111; Stewart-Warner Corp. v......