Coakwell v. United States

292 F.2d 918, 155 Ct. Cl. 193
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJuly 19, 1961
DocketNo. 213-57
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 292 F.2d 918 (Coakwell 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
Coakwell v. United States, 292 F.2d 918, 155 Ct. Cl. 193 (cc 1961).

Opinion

Whitaker, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff sues for the infringement of his patent on an anti-blackout device (United States Letters Patent No. 2,676,586). The patent was applied for on June 24, 1942, and was issued on April 27,1954.

Defendant asserts that plaintiff’s patent was anticipated by the prior art and prior knowledge and is, therefore, invalid. This is defendant’s chief defense. It also says that plaintiff’s patent must be limited to the particular embodiment of it as disclosed by the drawings and specifications and that, as so limited, its device did not infringe it.

The apparatus on which plaintiff secured a patent was designed to prevent a condition known as “blackout” which fighter pilots experienced while maneuvering an airplane in a sharp turn or while recovering from a dive. The embodiment illustrated in the patent included a bellows filled with fluid, in the center of which was a plunger. When this plunger was forced downward it constricted the bellows and [195]*195thus forced out the liquid contained therein. This liquid under pressure was transmitted through rubber hose to selected portions of the body of the pilot of an airplane, thereby applying pressure to the blood vessels in such portions of his body, thus preventing the accumulation of blood at such portions and minimizing the draining of blood from the pilot’s head.

There was attached to this plunger a crossbar, pivotally attached at one end to the structure containing the bellows filled with fluid; at the other end there was attached a weight. When the direction of the airplane was changed suddenly, this weight tended to continue in the former direction, which forced down the plunger and, in turn, forced the liquid out of the bellows and applied pressure to the desired portions of the pilot’s body.

This sudden change of direction of an airplane occurs when a pilot pulls the plane out of a dive or makes a sharp “bank”. Such a sudden change in direction causes an increase in the forces acting on the pilot’s body. This increase in the normal pull of gravity on the pilot’s body, known as g, is produced by the momentum of the body tending to move in the former direction of the plane. Plaintiff’s device is designed to operate automatically in response to an increase in g, and thus to automatically apply increased pressure to the desired portions of the pilot’s body when there is an increase in g.

The specifications thus describes the objects of the invention:

In maneuvering fast fighting planes during the course of an air battle, sharp banks and turns at high speed are often necessary to escape the fire of enemy craft. But such turns are highly dangerous because sudden changes in the direction of movement of the pilot’s body may so accelerate the flow of blood through the veins leading from the head as to drain the blood from the pilot’s brain to an extent such that the optic nerves are affected and the pilot becomes temporarily blind. The apparent increase in the weight of a body carried by a plane due to its inertia during recovery of the plane from a diving maneuver is commonly referred to as an increase of g and the present invention provides means automatically [196]*196operative upon an increase of g for impeding tbe flow of blood from tbe pilot’s brain to prevent blacking out.
Tbe present invention has for its object to provide acceleration responsive means for retarding tbe venous flow of blood from tbe bead during sharp turns so as to increase tbe pilot’s resistance to blacking-out.
A further object of the present invention is to provide a pressure-applying device which is automatically controlled by turning movements of the plane such that there is an increase in the thrust of the pilot’s body against the seat due to inertia.

No claim is made that claim 1 of the patent has been infringed by defendant, but for a better understanding of the issues, it is desirable to state what is claimed therein. It called for the application of the increased pressure to the veins of the pilot’s neck, and the specifications, describing an embodiment of it, call for the application of the pressure on the neck. The specifications are set out in the findings.

The original application did not specifically describe the applicaton of pressure to any portion of the body except the neck, and the specifications describe such a device. However, the Patent Office Examiner suggested a claim that was not limited to the neck as the place for the application of pressure. The patentee then added claim 2, which did not restrict the application of pressure to the pilot’s neck; it called for its application to “a portion of the body,” without specifying what portion. It reads, with indentations and emphasis added to facilitate an understanding of it:

The combination, comprising
(a) constrictmg means to be worn about a portion of the body of an occupant of an aircraft,
(b) a conduit for conducting' a fluid medium under-pressure to operate said constricting means,
(c) acceleration responsive means for regulating the pressure of said fluid medium so as to increase the constricting force applied by said constricting means during recovery of said aircraft from a diving maneuver and
() said constricting means arranged to be positioned about the body of the occupant in such a manner as to retard upon such increase in the constricting force thereof the drainage of blood from the brain of the occupant,
[197]*197(a2) whereby during the interval of recovery of the aircraft from said diving maneuver the occupant may be protected from loss of consciousness.

Claim 6 differs from claim 2 only in that it specifies that the increase in pressure on the desired portion of the body is in proportion to the increase in g.

Claim 7 prescribes, in addition, means for limiting the pressure applied to the body.

Claim 5 differs but little from claim 2, with the additional features of claims 6 and 7. It is stated as set out in finding 12.

In support of its claim that plaintiff’s patent was anticipated by the prior art and prior knowledge, defendant relies primarily on the alleged knowledge and disclosures of Dr. Ferwerda prior to plaintiff’s application. Prior to plaintiff’s application on June 24, 1942, Dr. Ferwerda had tested a device by flights at Anacostia in January 1942, and in April he tested it by centrifuge and by flights in Canada. He continued working on and testing his device after plaintiff’s application was filed, and it was not until August 26, 1944, that Ferwerda applied for a patent. One of the claims made in his application was identical with claim 2 of plaintiff’s patent. Plaintiff’s application was still pending when Ferwerda’s application was filed, and the Patent Office instituted interference proceedings between plaintiff, Ferwerda, and others, to determine who was the first inventor. The Board of Interference Examiners found that plaintiff was. This was the final determination of the Patent Office.

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

Related

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc.
994 F. Supp. 2d 367 (S.D. New York, 2014)
Abbott GmbH & Co. v. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc.
870 F. Supp. 2d 206 (D. Massachusetts, 2012)
Coakwell
192 Ct. Cl. 957 (Court of Claims, 1970)
Charles A. Coakwell v. The United States
372 F.2d 508 (Court of Claims, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
292 F.2d 918, 155 Ct. Cl. 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coakwell-v-united-states-cc-1961.