Roberts v. General Electric Co., 5802.
| Decision Date | 19 September 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 5802.,5802. |
| Citation | 85 F.2d 964 |
| Parties | ROBERTS v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Edward Davis, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Melville D. Church and R. Clyde Cruit, both of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
Merrell E. Clark and Charles H. Walker, both of New York City, and Howson & Howson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge.
This appeal involves the alleged infringement of the Kusel patent No. 1,847,839 by the "Monitor Top" or "Ten Star" household refrigerator manufactured by the appellee. The District Court found the Kusel patent to be valid but not infringed.
The Kusel invention was reduced to practice in August of 1923, according to the findings of the District Court. The patent was filed on October 1, 1926. The rights on this patent were obtained by the Kulair Corporation in the same year. However, it appears that no machine embodying this invention was ever commercialized. When the Kulair Corporation became bankrupt in March, 1933, its assets, including the Kusel patent, were valued at $147.25. The trustee in bankruptcy, being of the opinion that the appellee's product might possibly infringe the Kusel patent, sold it to the appellant for the purpose of bringing suit on the possible infringement.
The principles and mechanics of electric refrigeration are comparatively simple. A liquid, such as sulphur dioxide, is run through a series of coils known as the evaporator, in which a low atmospheric pressure is maintained and which is within the refrigerator cabinet. The liquid, due to the reduced pressure maintained within the coils, vaporizes. The process of vaporization consumes heat, which heat must come from the air, and from objects, such as food, within the cabinet. The vapor is then pumped from the evaporator by an electrically driven pump, known as the compressor. This pump, the compressor, besides maintaining the low pressure within the evaporator, compresses, and thereby elevates the temperature of the vapor. The vapor is then passed through a cooling apparatus known as the condenser. In the process of cooling the vapor returns to the liquid state and is ready to begin another cycle. Due to the fact that the evaporator is inside the refrigerator cabinet and the compressor and condenser are outside of the cabinet, the heat that is absorbed from the interior by the process of vaporization is dispersed outside of the cabinet. These principles were not new at the time of the Kusel invention, but were well known to the prior art.
The Kusel invention is concerned with the mechanical construction and mounting of a condenser of the air-cooled type. The single claim, No. 12, of the Kusel patent alleged to have been infringed reads as follows: "In a refrigerating apparatus, the combination with a compressor and driving mechanism therefor, of a closed wall condenser comprising a hollow cylindrical shell enclosing said compressor and providing a rigid housing therefor."
The patent describes the construction of the condenser as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spring-Air Co. v. Ragains
...patent and, therefore, as a paper patent, it can claim no scope of coverage beyond that specifically disclosed. Roberts v. General Electric Co., 3 Cir., 85 F.2d 964, 965; Stewart-Warner Corporation v. Jiffy Lubricator Co., 8 Cir., 81 F.2d 786. Furthermore, it is a combination patent in a cr......
-
National Brass Co. v. Michigan Hardware Co.
...electrical controllers. * * * In view thereof the patent should not be given a broad or liberal construction." In Roberts v. General Electric Co., 3 Cir., 85 F.2d 964, 965, the court "This is not a pioneer patent. It is now over nine years old and is still a mere paper patent. It is accordi......
-
Fraver v. Studebaker Corp.
...Etten v. Kauffman, 3 Cir., 1941, 121 F.2d 137; Gardiner v. Freed Heater & Mfg. Co., 3 Cir., 1939, 107 F.2d 364; Roberts v. General Electric Co., 3 Cir., 1936, 85 F.2d 964), and that the claims contemplated a ventilating device for cooling and heating the seat cushions as well as the passeng......
-
AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY v. HERCULES INCORPORATED
...106, 107. 31 T.R. 1169-70. 32 Standard Oil Development Co. v. James B. Berry Sons Co., 92 F.2d 386 (3 Cir. 1937); Roberts v. General Electric Co., 85 F.2d 964 (3 Cir. 1936); Elvin Mechanical Stoker Co. v. Locomotive Stoker Co., 286 F. 309 (3 Cir. 1923); Berghane v. Radio Corp. of America, 1......