Home/U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania/Cleveland Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.

Cleveland Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.

163 F. 846, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5270
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 11, 1908
DocketNo. 14
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 163 F. 846 (Cleveland Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cleveland Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 163 F. 846, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5270 (circtedpa 1908).

Opinion

ARCHBALD, District Judge.

The patent in suit is for a pneumatic tool; the controversy being over that feature of it, by which, through a permanently open port or supply duct, live air is admitted to the rear of the piston or plunger cylinder, and the claims which cover it being given in the margin.1 The advantage claimed for this, in the specifications, is that “at the end of the back stroke the plunger will be cushioned by the live air entering the rear end of the plunger cylinder through the permanently open shallow channel” thereby provided, thus reducing the jar experienced in the use of tools of this character, which at the best is racking, and also preventing the piston or plunger from striking against the end of the piston chamber or valve block. It is also now further claimed to furnish an initial impulse in starting the plunger forward, so that it shall respond on the instant to the action of the motive fluid, which is of especial importance when the tool is held vertically, as in overhead riveting. But nothing of that kind is suggested in the patent, and is conceded by the inventor to be an afterthought. The defendants, in the tool which they put out, máke use of a permanent live air port, such as is so specified; but it is differently located, opening into the rear of the pistón chamber bade of the control valve, through which the plunger reciprocates, instead of immediately back of the plunger, and is not

i “20.' In a pneumatic tool, the combination with a plunger-cylinder provided with air inlet and exhaust'at its rear end and with a small duct at said end-for permanent admission of live air, of a plunger reciprocating in said cylinder, and means for returning said plunger to and against the air-cushion provided through said permanent air-supply duct, substantially as set forth. ,
“22. In a pneumatic tool, the combination of a plunger-cylinder having an inlet and exhaust port at each end and means for distributing the air to and from said ends and formed with a permanently open live air inlet port of small area at the inner end of its bore, and a plunger reciprocating in said cylinder and cushioned at its back stroke by the air admitted through said last-mentioned port, substantially as set forth.”.

[847]*847intended to cushion or relieve the back stroke, as it is said, but purely and solely to start the tool quickly, the cushioning of the plunger being otherwise provided for, by means of the live air trapped in the rear of it.

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

Related

Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Keller Pneumatic Tool Co.
293 F. 945 (Third Circuit, 1923)
Boyer v. Cleveland Pneumatic Tool Co.
185 F. 808 (Sixth Circuit, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
163 F. 846, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleveland-pneumatic-tool-co-v-chicago-pneumatic-tool-co-circtedpa-1908.