A. R. Mosler & Co. v. Lurie

209 F. 364, 126 C.C.A. 290, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1805
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedNovember 11, 1913
DocketNo. 31
StatusPublished
Cited by49 cases

This text of 209 F. 364 (A. R. Mosler & Co. v. Lurie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
A. R. Mosler & Co. v. Lurie, 209 F. 364, 126 C.C.A. 290, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1805 (2d Cir. 1913).

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The patentee in his specifications states that the object of his invention is to produce a méthod of insulating the electrodes of gas, oil, or vapor engines that will not foul injuriously, so that it will remain in working order, causing the igniting [365]*365spark to jump across the space between the points of the electrodes. He states that:

“It is a well-known fact that up to this time the fouling of the insulation of the electrodes * * * has been the greatest objection to the successful use of an electric current * * * to pass between the points of stationary electrodes placed in the cylinders or firing-chambers of [such] engines, said points not being in actual contact with each other.”

This refers to the “jump-spark” system, not to the “make and break” system, of electric ignition.

“It is an established fact that when the insulation of the electrodes * * * gets foul the intense current will not pass between the points of the electrodes and make the required firing-spark, but follows the fouling of the insulation without making a spark of sufficient intensity to explode the charge . * * * of combustible * * *; but when the insulations are not fouled and in good working order the electric current will jump across between the points of the electrodes, and thereby cause an electric spark of sufficient intensity to fire or explode the charge,” etc.

The specification states that patentee’s improvement consists-—

“of a counterbore or recess around the electrode at a point where it enters the cylinder of a gas, oil, or vapor engine of such size and depth as will prevent the explosive mixture from cylinder or firing-chamber circulating into said cavity far enough to deposit the products of its combustion onto the insulator at the deepest part of the counterboie or recess. I find by actual test that a counterbore or recess for a quarter-inch electrode works satisfactorily by being half-inch diameter by one and one-quarter inches deep; but a counterbore or recess half-inch diameter by three inches deep is still more satisfactory, for the reason that it more completely prevents circulation. A counterbore or recess of larger diameter than its depth will not prevent circulation and consequent fouling.”

The combination of the patent is shown in Figure 1.

In this the electrodes are shown entering the firing-chamber, 6 showing the space where the electric current should form firing-spark; 7 shows the insulator and 8 the deep, small-diameter counterbore or recess. The specification closes with the statement:

“It is immaterial what shape or form the counterbore or recess is made in, so that it surrounds the electrode and of such size and depth that it prevents the circulation of the explosive mixture into the deepest part of the same.”

The claims are:

“1. In a gas, oil, or vapor engine igniter or sparker, a recess or eounterbore around [366]*366the electrode or electrodes and above its or their sparking points when said electrodes are used vertically, for the purpose of preventing an injurious accumulation of the products of combustion or other foul matter on the insulation of said electrodes, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.
[365]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Executive Development, Inc.
79 F. Supp. 2d 474 (D. New Jersey, 1999)
Marvel Specialty Co. v. Magnet Mills, Inc.
297 F. Supp. 1026 (S.D. New York, 1969)
Ful-Vue Sales Co. v. American Optical Co.
118 F. Supp. 517 (S.D. New York, 1953)
Lukens Steel Co. v. American Locomotive Co.
197 F.2d 939 (Second Circuit, 1952)
Foxboro Co. v. Taylor Instrument Companies
58 F. Supp. 313 (W.D. New York, 1944)
Mead Johnson & Co. v. Hillman's, Inc.
135 F.2d 955 (Seventh Circuit, 1943)
Van Alen v. Aluminum Co. of America
43 F. Supp. 833 (S.D. New York, 1942)
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Clair
123 F.2d 878 (Eighth Circuit, 1941)
Keystone MacAroni Mfg. Co. v. v. Arena & Sons, Inc.
27 F. Supp. 290 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1939)
Plough, Inc. v. Intercity Oil Co.
26 F. Supp. 978 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1939)
Procter & Gamble Co. v. J. L. Prescott Co.
102 F.2d 773 (Third Circuit, 1939)
Hartford-Empire Co. v. Swindell Bros.
18 F. Supp. 191 (D. Maryland, 1937)
Beadle v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
17 F. Supp. 830 (E.D. New York, 1937)
Union Shipbuilding Co. v. Boston Iron & Metal Co.
17 F. Supp. 318 (D. Maryland, 1936)
Eclipse MacH. Co. v. J. H. Specialty Mfg. Co.
4 F. Supp. 306 (E.D. New York, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
209 F. 364, 126 C.C.A. 290, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-r-mosler-co-v-lurie-ca2-1913.