American Pneumatic Service Co. v. W. V. Snyder & Co.

174 F. 152, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5170
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey
DecidedSeptember 20, 1909
StatusPublished

This text of 174 F. 152 (American Pneumatic Service Co. v. W. V. Snyder & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Pneumatic Service Co. v. W. V. Snyder & Co., 174 F. 152, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5170 (circtdnj 1909).

Opinion

HANNING, Circuit Judge.

I do not find it necessary in this case to decide the questions raised by -the defendants as to the validity of the complainants’ patent. Assuming its validity, the defendants do notj in my judgment, infringe the patent by- the manufacture and use of their device.

The complainants’ patent, No. 658,102, dated September 18, 1900, , is for improvements in vacuo-pneumatic dispatch systems; that is, in that class of pneumatic dispatch systems wherein a partial vacuum is maintained in the line of tubing by an exhauster or pump. The specification of the patent states that the object of the invention therein described is to attain the highest practicable economy in the operation of vacuo systems by reducing the duty of the exhauster to the minimum required for the service actually performed when the carriers are moved through the line. This reduction of duty i's effected by providing a system wherein the line of transmission tubes is closed at all times when no service in the transmission of carriers is being performed, so that during such times the only duty required of the exhauster is to maintain a slight vacuum in the closed line. When [153]*153greater service of tlie exhauster is required for the transmission of carriers, a terminal air-inlet opens for the admission of air into the line in the rear of the carriers, and the exhauster, regulated by a governor, then speeds up and by increased exhaustion of the air in front of the carriers enables the air admitted in the rear to force the carriers through the line. The following figures illustrate the operation of the complainants’ patented device:

[154]*154In Fig. 1, the exhauster, 2, is at the end of the looped line of tubing, 1, most remote from the end provided with the terminal air-inlet, 3. Dispatch inlets — that is, inlets where carriers are inserted in the line —are represented at 20, each having a door, 24; and discharge outlets — that is, outlets where the carriers are discharged from the line —are represented at 22, each having a door, 20. Each of the doors to these inlets and outlets is closed by a spring. Door 24 is opened manually or otherwise when a carrier is inserted, and door 26 is opened by the impact of the discharging carrier. Door 24 is closed immediately after the carrier is inserted, and door 26 immediately after it is discharged. It will be observed, then, that during the whole of the time the line is not in service it is closed between the exhauster, 2, at one end; and the air-inlet, 3, at the other end. Assuming" the ex-hauster not to be in operation, and the air in the line of tubing not to have .been to any extent drawn from it, the ball-valve, 10 (which is connected by a rod with a perforated piston head as 'shown in cylinder 4 of Fig'. 2 and in Fig. 3), occupies a position below the conical valve-seat, 8. If the exhauster, 2, be now put into operation, it draws the air from the tubing, 1, to such an extent as to produce a partial vacuum therein. The piston head in cylinder 4 is thereupon forced up by the pressure of the air passing into the lower part of the cylinder through the conical valve-seat, 8, and ball-valve 10 is thereby lifted to its seat in 8. In this manner air-inlet 3 is closed, and it remains closed so long as exhauster 2 keeps the air in the tubing sufficiently rarified to enable the external pressure to hold 10 in its seat, 8. Now, if door 24 be opened, air will be admitted to the line through the door, and valve 10 will immediately drop by gravity. If , a carrier be then inserted at 24, and the door closed behind the carrier, air will be admitted to the line through the air-inlet at 8, and the perforated piston head in cylinder 4. The perforated piston head is provided with a damper, shown in Fig. 3, by which the admission of air into the line may be regulated. As the exhauster, 2, exhausts the air in front of the carrier, the carrier is forced through the line by the pressure of the air behind it until its discharge at 26. When the carrier is discharged at 26, the door at 26 being immediately closed after the discharge by means of a spring or otherwise, exhauster 2, no longer required to overcome the added resistance of a carrier in the line, exhausts the air from the line to an extent sufficient to cause valve 10 again to take its seat in 8, and thus to close the system until another carrier is inserted. With this brief description the two claims -of the patent will, perhaps, be understood. They are:

“1. A vacuo dispatch system, characterized by the combination of a line of tubing, an exhauster operatively connected therewith, and a terminal air-inlet having a closure, which automatically shuts the air-inlet when no carrier is being dispatched and automatically opens' same when a carrier is being dispatched, substantially as described.
“2. The combination in a vacuo dispatch system of a line of tubing, an ex-hauster operatively connected therewith, dispatch inlets and discharge outlets normally closed, and a terminal air-inlet on said line, remote from said exhauster, provided with a closure which is arranged to automatically shut the said terminal air-inlet when no carrier is being dispatched and automatically open it when a carrier is being dispatched, substantially as described.”

[155]

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
174 F. 152, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-pneumatic-service-co-v-w-v-snyder-co-circtdnj-1909.