Reed v. Cropp Concrete Machinery Co.
Decision Date | 05 January 1915 |
Docket Number | 2082. |
Citation | 225 F. 764 |
Parties | REED v. CROPP CONCRETE MACHINERY CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Rehearing Denied May 25, 1915.
Charles M. Clarke, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
Glenn S. Noble, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before BAKER and SEAMAN, Circuit Judges, and GEIGER, District Judge.
The rotary mixing drum is an appliance well known and generally used in the preparation of concrete mixtures. Reed's patent covers an improvement in such a mixer, particularly in the mechanism for actuating the charging blades or the covering gate for the delivering chute. His object is thus stated:
' * * * To provide means for operating the baldes or gate and also for holding the blades in mixing or charging position and for holding the gate open or closed and providing for operating either from either end of the mixer drum by means of a lever and spring mechanism.'
The invention is thus described by the patentee:
(Image Omitted)
* * *
'The front wall 7 of the drum is provided with a centrally arranged outlet opening defined by the delivery chute 8, which in the position shown in Fig. 1 slopes downwardly and terminates in upper horizontal edges 9, and opens into the interior or mixing compartment of the drum.
'For the purpose of positively holding the gate in either open or closed position, I provide a tension spring 14 secured at one end by any suitable attachment, as a bolt 15, preferably provided with a nut by which it may be adjusted in its bearing to tighten or loosen the spring. 16 is a link connecting spring 14 with lever 12, or arc shape as shown, so that when the lever is thrown downwardly into the position shown in dotted lines for opening the gate, the arc-shaped link 16 will reach around the end of shaft 11 without interference, as clearly shown.
'Ordinarily, the gate lies down upon the top edges of chute 8 as indicated in the principal figures of the drawings.'
Permissible modifications of the structure-- also disclosed and claimed-- need not, in view of the issue, be noted. The controverted claims of the patent are:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dangler v. Imperial Mach. Co.
...act outside the scope of their official duties. Cazier v. Mackie-Lovejoy Mfg. Co., 138 F. 654, 71 C. C. A. 104; Reed v. Cropp Concrete Mach. Co., 225 F. 764, 141 C. C. A. 90. It may be successfully urged that this court in Reed v. Cropp Mach. Co., did not reaffirm the decision announced in ......
-
Stromberg Motor Devices Co. v. Holley Bros. Co.
... ... v. Randon Milling Co. (D.C.) 217 F. 796; Reed v ... Cropp Concrete Machinery Co., 225 F. 764, 141 C.C.A. 90 ... ...
-
Panther Pumps & Equipment Co., Inc. v. Hydrocraft, Inc.
...they act outside the scope of their official duties. Cazier v. Mackie-Lovejoy Mfg. Co., 138 F. 654, 71 C.C.A. 104; Reed v. Cropp Concrete Mach. Co., 225 F. 764, 141 C.C.A. 90. * * * * * "After due consideration of the various authorities, as well as the reasons back of the two positions, we......
- Brookheim v. Greenbaum