Bullock v. United States

176 F. Supp. 279, 146 Ct. Cl. 506, 122 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 207, 1959 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 170
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJuly 13, 1959
DocketNo. 533-53
StatusPublished

This text of 176 F. Supp. 279 (Bullock v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bullock v. United States, 176 F. Supp. 279, 146 Ct. Cl. 506, 122 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 207, 1959 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 170 (cc 1959).

Opinion

Whittaker, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs sue for compensation for the use of an alleged invention, on which plaintiff Bullock holds United States Letters Patent, No. 2,105,451. Plaintiff E. C. Brown Company is a licensee under said patent. Plaintiff Bullock is president of E. C. Brown Company.

The use of the alleged invention by defendant is not denied and defendant admits it had no license from the patentee to do so. It defends on the ground that the patent is invalid, because the alleged invention was not novel, having been anticipated by the prior art.

The invention is thus described in claim 1, upon which plaintiffs rely, in which, following the report of the Trial Commissioner, we have italicized and numbered and set apart the key elements.

CLAIM 1

In a pressure tank the combination of

ill a cylindrical tanle open at one end,
(2) an open head for said open end, said head comprising
(2a) a substantially cylindrical -flange formed inwardly at both ends to provide a larger opening at one end and a smaller opening at the other end of the flange,
(la) the open end of said tank being attached to said flange at the smaller opening thereof to provide a seat surrounding the open end of said tank,
(3) a cover for said opening in said head adapted to move into the larger opening of said head and be seated on the said seat surrounding the smaller opening thereof and the opening of said tank,
(2b) inclined and spaced locking flanges formed by the overhanging flange surrounding the larger opening of said head,
[508]*508(4) a locking bolt extending diagonally over said cover and mounted to rock- thereon,
(5) a cam carried at the ends of said bolts and pro]ect-ing radially from said cover so as to move thru the spaces between said locking flanges on the insertion of said cover into the head, and engage under said flanges on the rotation of the cover on the seat of the head and
(6) means for rocking said bolt to move said cams against said locking flanges and force said cover onto said seat.

A simpler and broader description of the alleged invention is set out in claim 8, upon which plaintiffs also rely, as follows:

CLAIM 8

In a pressure container the combination of

(11 a seat,
(2) a cover for said seat,
(3) a cam member associated with said seat,
(4) a locking member on said cover and movable therewith for engagement with said cam member to effect a preliminary sealing between said cover and said seat, and
(5) cam means provided on said locking member and movable with respect to said cover and cooperating with said seat cam member to effect further locking and sealing between said cover and said seat.

The other claims relied on by plaintiffs are 2, 7 and 9. They are set out in detail in the Findings of Fact. They add nothing to what is claimed in claims 1 and 8.

The result aimed at by the alleged invention was to provide a relatively large diameter cover for a pressure tank or container that would prevent the escape of the contents of the tank when pressure was applied thereto. This was accomplished by providing: (1) a head on the tank, including a top locking flange running in a plane inclined with respect to a seat-forming flange; and (2) a cover to which was attached a locking bolt having ends to engage the inclined locking flange. As the cover rotates, the locking bolt engages the inclined locking flange to force the gasket encircling the edge of the cover closer and closer against the head, until the opening in the tank was closed. This bolt which [509]*509fitted against the inclined locking flange bad a cam at each end, that is, one part of the surface of the bolt was flat and the rest of it was round. To this bolt there was attached a handle or other means for partially rotating it. When the bolt was inserted into the head, the flat part of the cam was in contact with the inclined locking flange. Since the diameter of the bolt through the cam was less than its diameter apart from the cam, when the bolt was rotated sufficiently to remove the flat part of the cam from contact with the locking flange, the cover was forced still tighter against the head, completing the seal, and preventing the escape of the contents of the tank.

• The contrivance worked successfully; but defendant says that each of its elements was well known, as was also the use of them in the same combination claimed by plaintiffs, and to accomplish the same result.

• Defendant cites first the Davis patent, No. 2,036,125. This was not cited by the Examiner in the Patent Office. The Davis patent is designed to do the same thing, and it employs the same principles as the patent in suit. It, too, has inclined flanges against which cams on each end of a locking bail attached to the cover operates. As the Davis cover is rotated, the cams, sliding along the inclined flanges, draw the cover tighter and tighter. When the bail is in a horizontal position, the flat portions of the cams are in contact with the flanges; when it is pulled up, the flat portions of the cams at the end of the bail no longer engage the flange and the round surfaces of the cams are drawn into contact with it. Since the diameter of the round surfaces is greater than through the flat surface of the cam, the gasket underneath the cover is drawn still tighter against the head of the tank, completely sealing it.

The basic elements in the two patents are the same, and the same principles are applied. The only difference in the two is, first, that in the Davis patent the inclined flange against which the cam on the cover operates is on the outside of the head of the tank, whereas in the Bullock patent it is.located at the top and within the head of the tank; and, second, in the Davis patent the cams on the cover are at the [510]*510end of a handle or bail and rotate with the bail; whereas in the Bullock patent they are at the end of a bolt attached to the cover, which is rotated by a handle, or other means. However, the inclined flanges in the two structures perform the same function, and the bolt, with its cams, and the bail, with its cams, perform the same function. One is an immaterial variation from the other. With either one the same result is obtained. Neither is an improvement over the other.

Plaintiffs say the Davis device is not constructed to withstand greater than atmospheric pressure within the tank, whereas the Bullock patent is. We see no reason why the Davis device would not withstand pressure as great as the Bullock device, if each was constructed out of the same material.

Furthermore, while Bullock’s claims mention a pressure tank, we find no recital that the alleged invention is limited to containers of a particular material or subjected to pressures of 100 pounds per square inch, or any particular amount of pressure.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 F. Supp. 279, 146 Ct. Cl. 506, 122 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 207, 1959 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullock-v-united-states-cc-1959.