Lillian McCullough Berghane v. Radio Corporation of America

217 F.2d 490, 103 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 406, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4693
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedDecember 13, 1954
Docket11245_1
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 217 F.2d 490 (Lillian McCullough Berghane v. Radio Corporation of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lillian McCullough Berghane v. Radio Corporation of America, 217 F.2d 490, 103 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 406, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4693 (3d Cir. 1954).

Opinion

BIGGS, Chief Judge.

Four patents issued to McCullough are before us on this appeal. Berghane alleged that RCA has infringed them. The court below found the claims of the patents involved to be invalid. See 116 F. Supp. 200. Lillian McCullough Berg-hane, presently co-owner of the patents with members of her family, has appealed.

*491 The first patent is No. 1,615,093, issued January 18, 1927, for a “High Vacuum Space Discharge Device and Gas Accumulator Therefor.” Claim 1 is in issue. 1 The disclosure is for a “getter”, 2 “such as oxides of various kinds, or pure willow charcoal.” 3 The court below found, Finding of Fact 6(e), that claim 1 was invalid because inoperative: “Charcoal on highly heated anodes in high vacuum radio tubes will not usefully absorb gases released during the operation of the tube (nor will oxides).” The court also found, Finding of Fact 6(f), that there was a “want of patentable invention, because charcoal was known as a material which would absorb gases under certain conditions and it would not require more than the expected skill of the art to use it for that purpose on tube anodes, * * There was evidence indicating that other “getter” materials for absorption of gases had long been known to the art. We cite as an example the Sutherlin Patent No. 1,740,481, the application for which was filed seven months before that of the patent in issue. The fact that charcoal has absorbent qualities and will function as a cleaner or “getter” in a tube was also known. See the Claude Patent No. 1,189,664 and the article by Sir James Dewar, “Gas Absorption by Charcoal”, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., Vol. XVI, at p. 751, and the article by William Thomas, “The Adsorption of Gases”, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. I, p. 182, 1948 ed. The Holst Patent No. 1,485,505, disclosed that such “getters” might be imposed on part of a plate of a tube. Both findings of the court below have full support in the record and are indubitably correct.

It is also clear that RCA’s. accused tube does not infringe claim 1. Claim 1 is a combination claim for a structure. It claims as an essential element in that structure a coating of charcoal on one surface of the anode. RCA’s tubes do not employ charcoal.

The next patent is No. 1,991,767 for a “Thermionic Tube”, issued February 19, 1935. Claim 3 is in issue. The disclosure referred to in the specification and in claim 3 is of “a ceramic supporting body at each end of the envelope” and a “fused ceramic sealing material” to form a seal between the external metal envelope of the tube and the supporting members at each end of it, and the anode, cathode, and grid electrodes 4

*492 McCullough’s disclosure is invalid over the prior art for want of patentable invention. We refer to the Stoekle Patent No. 1,353,976 and the Housekeeper Patent No. 1,583,463, demonstrating that the use of ceramic discs to support electrodes was old, and to the Gray Patent No. 1,269,534, showing that the use of a sealing material for electrode supports was well known. Compare the Simonds Patent No. 1,740,-375, relating to the connection of tube circuits to the ground.

RCA’s accused tube does not make use of any “ceramic” supporting body or sealing material. RCA’s tube does have a supporting body of mica but that is not a ceramic. The claim therefore has not been infringed.

We will deal now with Patent No. 1,806,109 for “Amplification of Electrical Currents”, issued May 19, 1931. Claim 2 is in issue. 5 The specification describes “ * * * a common type of circuit employing a plurality of stages of tuned radio frequency amplification.” The asserted invention is for a method of controlling inter-stage regeneration or feed-back and consists in decreasing successively the grid-plate capacity of the tubes but no means are disclosed for neutralizing the regenerative capacities of the first tube. The court below found, Finding of Fact 8(b), that: “The patent is inoperative, because intra-stage oscil- . lations, in the individual tubes, will not be prevented, and each amplifier tube will regenerate into uncontrollable oscillations. The tube circuits are not shielded from each other, either externally, or internally as by a shield grid.” These findings are supported by ample evidence and demonstrate that the disclosure is inoperative.

It is equally obvious that RCA’s accused superheterodyne receiver does not infringe claim 2. The RCA superheterodyne is of the usual type with a “tuned circuit” connected to the receiving antenna so the operator can select the desired frequency. The radio frequency comes into the converter tube, meeting the oscillator frequency, resulting in an intermediate frequency which is amplified and goes on to the detector. As to the nature of a superheterodyne receiver see Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Taub, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1924, 4 F.2d 605. RCA does not employ a series of radio frequency amplifying tubes functioning as disclosed by McCullough and other methods are employed by RCA to prevent regeneration in the converter and intermediate frequency tubes.

The fourth and last patent for discussion is No. 1,819,783, for “Radio Circuits Employing Alternating Current Radio Tubes”, issued August 18, 1931. Claims 3 and 5 6 are in issue. McCullough’s disclosure, to quote the specifica *493 tion, “relates to a method of and a circuit for using radio tubes of the type having a cathode and a heater for the cathode”, referring to tubes constructed in accordance with a copending application filed by McCullough. Such tubes are shown in Figure 2 of the patent under discussion.

The specification goes on to state: “While a tube as constructed in accordance with my said invention effectively eliminates inductance effects of alternating pulsating currents in the tube itself, it is desirable, when using the tube in a set, to eliminate any reaction or capacity effects between the alternating or pulsating heater circuit and the tube circuit per se.

“The present invention has for its object to provide a simple and convenient way of avoiding such reactions or effects.

“Furthermore, in a tube of this type, there is only one cathode connection in the base, whereas, the usual tube having the direct heated cathode or filament has two cathode connections in its base, which cathode connections, make circuit with the filament heating or ‘A’ battery, and whereas this A battery is not required with my tube, it will be seen that there is an open circuit across the usual A battery terminals of the receiving circuit.

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

Related

American Cyanamid Co. v. Hercules Inc.
260 F. Supp. 368 (D. Delaware, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
217 F.2d 490, 103 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 406, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 4693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lillian-mccullough-berghane-v-radio-corporation-of-america-ca3-1954.