H. H. Robertson Co. v. Klauer Mfg. Co.

21 F. Supp. 554, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1225
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa
DecidedJuly 27, 1937
DocketNo. 248
StatusPublished

This text of 21 F. Supp. 554 (H. H. Robertson Co. v. Klauer Mfg. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
H. H. Robertson Co. v. Klauer Mfg. Co., 21 F. Supp. 554, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1225 (N.D. Iowa 1937).

Opinion

SCOTT, District Judge.

Plaintiff, H. H. Robertson Company, brings suit in equity against Klauer Manufacturing Company, praying injunction and accounting for infringement of plaintiff’s patent (Young and Gephart No. 1,589,581). This patent was issued June 22, 1926, on application filed December 28, 1922. Plaintiff’s title is stipulated, as well as the manufacture and sale of defendant’s alleged infringing device within the past six years.

While plaintiff’s bill alleges the infringement of the patent generally, the parties by agreement have confined the controversy to claims 1 and 5, being the first and last claims of the patent. Claims 1 and 5 are as follows:

“V. A ventilator comprising an eduction pipe provided near its upper edge with a lip extended downward and outwardly for trapping air currents flowing upwardly along said pipe, a cap member located above said eduction pipe and separated therefrom a substantial distance, and a storm band of materially greater diameter than said eduction pipe surrounding the latter, said eduction pipe, cap member and storm band being constructed and arranged to have the lower end of the storm band extended below the top of the eduction pipe to prevent horizontally flowing air currents from entering the ventilator at the bottom thereof, and to have the upper end of the storm band extended above the lower edge of the cap member to prevent horizontally flowing air currents from entering the ventilator at its top and yet leave a substantial space between the lower edge of the cap member and a plane tangential to the upper edges of the storm band and eduction pipe and intersecting the longitudinal axis of the latter, to form a direct passage of substantial width from the eduction pipe to the atmosphere in the absence of obstructions therein, means for obstructing said direct passage to prevent the entrance of rain into the eduction pipe, and means co-operating with the storm band and eduction pipe to deflect to the outside of said storm band upwardly inclined flowing air currents. * * *
“5. A ventilator comprising an eduction pipe, a cap member located above said eduction pipe and separated therefrom a substantial distance, and a1 storm band of materially greater diameter than said eduction pipe surrounding the latter, said eduction pipe, cap member and storm band being constructed and arranged to have the lower end of the storm band extended below the top of the eduction pipe to prevent horizontally flowing air currents from entering the ventilator at the bottom thereof, and to, have the upper end of the storm band extended above the lower edge of the cap member to prevent horizontally flowing air currents from entering the ventilator at its top and yet leave a substantial space between the lower edge of the cap member and a plane tangential to the upper edges of the storm band and eduction pipe and intersecting the longitudinal axis of the latter, to form a direct passage of substantial width from the eduction pipe to the atmosphere in the absence of obstructions therein, means for obstructing said direct passage to prevent the entrance of rain into the eduction pipe, and means co-operating with the storm band and eduction pipe to deflect to the outside of said storm band upwardly inclined flowing air currents.”

Before discussing particular defenses, it will be helpful to describe more fully the character of plaintiff’s device. The patent in question is a combination patent; that is, it is conceded that in a general way all of the elements are old and also parts of the combination old. A clear idea of some of the important elements entering into the combination is not readily obtainable from a mere reading of the claims themselves. In order to get the full picture in mind, it is necessary in addition to a reading of the claims to resort to the specifications of both elements and combination.

The specifications set forth in the application describe the elements and combination as follows:

[556]*556“This invention relates to a' ventilator for buildings, vessels, chimneys and like structures, and has for its object to provide a ventilator of maximum efficiency at a minimum cost.
“To this end, the ventilator is constructed so as to effectively keep the wind out of the ventilator; to provide for easy passage of the gaseous fluid from- within the building to the atmosphere through the ventilator ; and to prevent the rain from entering the building or other structure through the ventilator.
“A ventilator having these functions is especially adapted for use on flat roofs.
“The ventilator is also preferably, provided with means for deflecting upwardly flowing air currents so as to prevent them from entering the ventilator.
“The ventilator provided with this deflecting feature' is especially useful on pitched or inclined roofs. * * *
“In the present instance, is shown a construction of ventilator which is capable of being used on a building having a flat roof or on a building having a pitched roof, with equal efficiency.
“The ventilator herein shown is provided with an eduction pipe Í0, a cap member 12, a storm band 13, which are suitably connected together, and have a definite relation to one another as will be described to obtain a ventilator of maximum efficiency.
“To this end, the cap member 12 is located above the outlet mouth or upper edge of the eduction pipe 10 within the storm band 13, and its lower rim or edge .is separated from said outlet mouth a sub; stantial distance, and the storm band 13 is made of a length equal to and preferably longer than the distance between the eduction pipe 10 and' the cap member 12, so as to extend below the upper edge of the eduction pipe and above the lower edge or rim of the cap member, and thereby practically close the space between the cap member and the eduction pipe to the entrance of air currents flowing in a direction substantially at right angles to the axis of the storm band as indicated by the arrow 20.
“The storm band 13 is also made of such diameter or .size with relation to the cap member 12 and eduction pipe 10, as to afford direct communication, in th,e absence of obstructions, from the eduction pipe to the atmosphere through the space between the cap member 12 and the upper edge of the storm band, as indicated by the dotted lines 21, Fig. 4.
“By making the storm band 13 long enough to extend below the throat or outlet mouth of the eduction pipe and above the rim or lower edge of the cap member, the wind is prevented from entering the ventilator when it flows in a horizontal direction indicated by the arrow 20, and the wind which passes over the ventilator has a maximum aspirating effect on the gases within the ventilator and draws them from the eduction pipe through the space between the cap member and the storm band. A ventilator of this construction could be used to advantage on flat roofs.
“If, however, air currents should also flow upwardly as well as horizontally, as would occur when the ventilator is used on a pitched or inclined roof, the efficiency of the ventilator thus far described, would be reduced by such upwardly flowing currents, which are represented in Fig. 4 by the arrow 23.

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

Related

Railway Co. v. Sayles
97 U.S. 554 (Supreme Court, 1878)
Hobbs v. Beach
180 U.S. 383 (Supreme Court, 1901)
Line Material Co. v. Brady Electric Mfg. Co.
7 F.2d 48 (Second Circuit, 1925)
In re Curtis
81 F.2d 236 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1936)
Cleveland Foundry Co. v. Detroit Vapor Stove Co.
131 F. 853 (Sixth Circuit, 1904)
Krell Auto Grand Piano Co. v. Story & Clark Co.
207 F. 946 (Seventh Circuit, 1913)
Boyce v. Stewart-Warner Speedometer Corp.
220 F. 118 (Second Circuit, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 F. Supp. 554, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-h-robertson-co-v-klauer-mfg-co-iand-1937.