Dole Valve Co. v. Perfection Bar Equipment, Inc.

298 F. Supp. 401, 160 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 393, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12359
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedDecember 17, 1968
DocketNo. 67 C 1126
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 298 F. Supp. 401 (Dole Valve Co. v. Perfection Bar Equipment, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dole Valve Co. v. Perfection Bar Equipment, Inc., 298 F. Supp. 401, 160 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 393, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12359 (N.D. Ill. 1968).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DECKER, District Judge.

The Dole Valve Company is attempting to enforce patent 3,162,323, alleging that beverage dispensing systems assembled by Perfection Bar Equipment, Inc. infringe its provisions. In response, Perfection claims the patent is invalid and maintains that its devices do not infringe. Both companies are Illinois corporations. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1338.

Issued in 1964 to Mr. Kromer, the contested patent covers a “method of and apparatus for carbonating, cooling, storing, distributing and dispensing beverages.” The field of fluid flow, however, is an old one in which the art is sophisticated and well known. Plaintiff concedes that the patent builds upon two earlier Kromer patents 1 which disclosed many particulars of the instant system.

After a detailed trial, I conclude that the patent is invalid, both because obvious and because anticipated by the prior art. Only two of the three accused devices infringe its claims. The first section of this opinion will analyze the contribution disclosed by the patent. Then the issue of validity will be discussed, followed by an application of the patent’s claims to the accused devices.

I. The Invention

Initially, one should understand precisely what aspects of the patent are old. The parties agree that the earlier Kromer patents, among others,2 disclosed fluid systems which carbonate fresh water, store and refrigerate it in a tank, circulate the water to dispensing faucets, and automatically add additional fresh water to the system when needed. Specifically, in these systems water is circulated in a closed circuit, including a storage tank, by a constantly operating suction pump. When the level of fluid in the tank reaches a predetermined lower level, sensing electrodes actuate a second pump which then draws additional fresh water into the system. See diagram 1, appendix A. As water enters the system, the level in the tank rises; when it reaches a predetermined upper level, a second sensing electrode stops the intake pump. An ordinary cheek valve closes the fresh water line when it is not in use.3

[403]*403The contested Kromer patent, also referred to as the “Tuckaway” system, altered prior art in only one significant respect: the circulation pump and the intake pump were replaced by a single pump and a control valve. To accomplish this, the fresh water is no longer drawn into the tank by a separate pipe; rather, the Tuckaway system connects the fresh water inlet directly with the circulating system, joining that system between the control valve and the single pump. This juncture and the control valve are both upstream from the pump, so that when the control valve is closed the pump’s suction pulls fresh water into the system. See diagram 2, appendix A. On the other hand, when the control valve is open, the check valve prevents fresh water from entering; the pump then circulates carbonated water throughout the dispensing unit. Thus, this constantly operating pump performs both the intake and circulation functions. The control valve is actuated by a relay connected with electrodes which sense the fluid level in the tank.

The advantages of a single pump and a control valve, as contrasted with two separate pumps, are obvious. But utilization of one pump to perform the two functions of circulation and refill was not new. Similarly, control valves, check valves, and electrical relays are old in the art. In fact, neither party contends that any of the elements in the patented system are new. Rather, Dole Valve maintains that the single pump concept has not previously been applied to soda water dispensing systems.

II. Validity

Federal legislation restricts patents to subjects which are neither obvious nor anticipated by previous patents. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103. While Dole Valve relies heavily upon the statutory presumption of patent validity, 35 U.S.C. § 282, the Patent Office failed to consider much of the prior art.4 The presumption is therefore not applicable. See T. P. Laboratories, Inc. v. Huge, 371 F.2d 231, 234 (7th Cir. 1966); Novo Industrial Corp. v. Standard Screw Co., 374 F.2d 824, 827 (7th Cir. 1967).

A. Obviousness

In Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966), the Supreme Court recently indicated that obviousness should be analyzed in terms of the prior art as of the time the invention was conceived. See also Gass v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 387 F.2d 129, 132 (7th Cir. 1967).

The most relevant prior art consists of two German patents, Laubach 288,219 and Laubach 280,997, issued in 1915 and 1914, respectively.5 They describe a system for storing, circulating and replenishing carbonated water. Specifically, each patent explains how a single pump may perform the dual functions of circulation and water refill.6 See diagrams 3 & 4, appendix B.

Referring to diagram 3 (patent ’219), the water intake pipe and the circulation path join at the structure labeled “I.” When the storage tank A is adequately filled, the continuously operating pump [404]*404D draws water from the tank through the opening E, up the pipe i, through the juncture I, and then past the pump and back into the tank. On the other hand, when the water level in the tank is low, the float F&Fi drops, thus closing the opening E and preventing carbonated fluid from leaving the tank. Since the pump continues to create suction, fresh water is then drawn into the system, entering through pipe G, passing the juncture I and the pump, and then entering the tank. When the tank is refilled, the float F&Fi rises, thus allowing carbonated fluid to be drawn into pipe i at opening E by the pump’s suction. The pump then circulates the carbonated fluid as described above; when such circulation occurs, fresh water is prevented from entering the system by the check valve, labeled o, which is located at the bottom of juncture I.

Similarly, the pump in ’997 performs both the circulation and refill functions. Fresh water enters pipe G, passes through the three-way valve which is shaded in diagram 4 (appendix B) by following the arrows indicating a white pathway C2 past juncture I. It then proceeds through the pump and into the tank as above. The circulation path is also similar to that in '219, commencing at the opening in the side of the tank, passing through the left ventricle of the three-way valve (shown by arrows within the narrowly depicted passageway v), and then proceeding through the pump and back into the tank.7

The two preceding patents8

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
298 F. Supp. 401, 160 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 393, 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dole-valve-co-v-perfection-bar-equipment-inc-ilnd-1968.