Boyer v. Keller Tool Co.

127 F. 130, 62 C.C.A. 244, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4400
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided December 21, 1903·No. No. 1·Published·Cited by 28 cases

Opinion

ARCHBALD, District Judge.

The hill was dismissed on the ground of ’noninfringement, and the case may therefore be appropriately approached from that side. The patent in suit was issued to Joseph Boyer, April 16, 1895, for a pneumatic tool, and its various features are expressed in a large number of claims, only two groups of which, however, were the subject of consideration in tlie court below. The appellant accepts the conclusion reached with regard to those, of which claim 5 is typical, and which relate to the automatic valve mechanism at the rear of the piston chamber. The only complaint, therefore, with which we have to deal is the treatment of those which cover the means for controlling the supply pressure, being claims 42 to 48, inclusive. Taking claim 47 as expressive of this group, it was held by the court below that a pressure supply duct was there called for which extended through the grasping portion of the handle, combined with a throttle valve to control the supply, of tlie exact construction and method of operation shown in the patent, and that, as neither of these appeared in the tool manufactured by the defendant company, it could not be held to infringe. The relative construction of this [132] párt df fhe defendants’ tool and' that of the plaintiff as portrayed in the patent will appear by the following diagrams;

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

Boyer v. Keller Tool Co., 127 F. 130, 62 C.C.A. 244, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4400 (3d Cir. 1903).

127 F. 130 (Boyer v. Keller Tool Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Keyes Fibre Co. v. Chaplin Corp.
97 F. Supp. 605 (D. Maine, 1951)
Jacquard Knitting MacHine Co. v. Ordnance Gauge Co.
95 F. Supp. 902 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1951)
Federal Machine & Welder Co. v. Mesta Machine Co.
27 F. Supp. 747 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1939)
Raffold Process Corp. v. Castanea Paper Co.
98 F.2d 355 (Third Circuit, 1938)
American Wood Products Corp. v. Crane Co.
29 F. Supp. 807 (N.D. Ohio, 1937)
Drumhead Co. of America v. Hammond
18 F. Supp. 734 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1936)
Cold Metal Process Co. v. UNITED STATES ENG. & FOUNDRY CO.
3 F. Supp. 120 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1933)
General Electric Co. v. George J. Hagan Co.
38 F.2d 995 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1929)
Witherow Steel Corporation v. Donner Steel Co.
31 F.2d 157 (W.D. New York, 1929)
Lenk v. Hunt-Lasher Co.
14 F.2d 335 (D. Massachusetts, 1926)
Rollman Mfg. Co. v. Universal Hardware Works
207 F. 97 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1913)
Boyer v. Cleveland Pneumatic Tool Co.
185 F. 808 (Sixth Circuit, 1911)
Kelsey Heating Co. v. James Spear Stove & Heating Co.
155 F. 976 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania, 1907)
De Long Hook & Eye Co. v. Francis Hook & Eye & Fastener Co.
150 F. 597 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western New York, 1906)