Merco Nordstrom Valve Co. v. W. M. Acker Organization, Inc.

131 F.2d 277, 55 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 253, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2789
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedOctober 10, 1942
DocketNo. 8997
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 131 F.2d 277 (Merco Nordstrom Valve Co. v. W. M. Acker Organization, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Merco Nordstrom Valve Co. v. W. M. Acker Organization, Inc., 131 F.2d 277, 55 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 253, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2789 (6th Cir. 1942).

Opinion

HICKS, Circuit Judge.

Suit by appellant for infringement of Claims 6, 7 and 8 of Reissue Patent No. 17,375, herein called No. 75, July 16, 1929, to Nordstrom for a “Valve”; and of Claims 13 and 14 of Patent No. 2,012,578, herein called No. 78, August 27, 1935, also to Nordstrom for a “Valve.” The defenses were invalidity and noninfringement.

In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court limited the claims substantially to the disclosures of the patent, and held that so limited, they were valid but uninfringed. It thereupon dismissed the bill by a short, general decree. Plaintiff appealed. There was no cross appeal.

Appellant asserts that the only issue here is that of, infringement since appellees have not filed a cross appeal. We do not so understand the law. The appeal brought up the whole case and appellees are entitled to an affirmance if it was right for any reason. Appellees are entitled to be heard upon the question of validity of the patents, regardless of the finding, and if the patents are invalid, the decree was right although based upon non-infringement. Stelos Co. v. Hosiery Motor-Mend Corp., 295 U.S. 237, 239, 55 S.Ct. 746, 79 L.Ed. 1414; Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 538, 51 S.Ct. 243, 75 L.Ed. 520; Mills Nov. Co. v. Monarch Tool & Mfg. Co., 6 Cir., 49 F.2d 28, 29; Cleveland Clinic Foundation et al. v. Humphreys et al., 6 Cir., 97 F.2d 849, 855, 121 A.L.R. 163.

Each patent relates to an improvement in the pressure lubricating system of “plug valves.” No. 78 emphasizes its application to “tapered plugs.”

[278]*278In the specification of No. 75 it was stated that one object of the invention was “to provide a plug valve * * * with a system of lubricating grooves of such arrangement that when the plug is in closed position the grooves on each side of the passageway through the valve seat cooperate to constitute a continuous groove completely surrounding the passageway which may be filled with lubricant under pressure to prevent leakage past the plug.” By the described arrangement it was stated that it was “possible to turn the plug through an angle of 360 degrees without exposing a groove or grooves in which there is lubricant under pressure to the fluid passing through the line.” The specification indicates that the principle of pressure lubrication for'the purpose of lubricating and rendering heavy valves non-leakable was already old, and that No. 75 proposed to apply that “principle” to plug valves of the “cheapest and lightest construction.”

The, drawings are illustrative of a tapered plug and the specification states that this is the preferred form. Five of the eight claims expressly called for a tapered valve seat, although the three claims in suit do not so specify. The valve described consisted of a tapered plug, frusto-conical in shape, seated with the small end down in a valve seat of the same shape. A threaded projection at the lower end of the plug received a rigid washer and nut, which when screwed tight held the plug securely against the seat. A flattened stem at the upper end of the plug accommodated a wrench for rotation into open and closed positions. The plug had a single passageway therethrough, the ports of which, when in registry with the passageways in the seat, allowed the flow of fluids and gases through the valve; and out of registry, blocked such flow.

In the prior art play between plug and seat permitted rotation of the plug and prevented binding; but fluids and gases in the line, often under tremendous pressures, tended to infiltrate through this space, either around, beneath, or over the plug, causing valve leakage. The purported invention of No. 75 was designed to close this space between plug and seat with a grease or lubricant under sufficient pressure to hold back the fluids or gases of the line, thus rendering the valve non-leakable. This was accomplished by the providing in the faces of the plug and of the seat a system of grooves which' were in communication with a grease reservoir in the cone of the valve stem to which pressure could be applied by means of a screw in the stem. Two radial ducts, extending at right angles to the long axis of the plug and at 180 degrees to each other, connected the grease reservoir with the center of horizontal arcuate grooves in the plug face which grooves were disposed midway between each port and above its upper edge. Also in the face of the plug and disposed below the lower edges of the ports were two other arcuate horizontal grooves parallel to those just described. In the open and closed positions of the valve, the ends of each pair of parallel grooves were connected by vertical grooves, four in all, cut into the seat of the plug 90 degrees apart. Thus the lubricant spread from the reservoir through the two radial ducts to the centers of the upper arcuate grooves, thence to the ends thereof, and when in registx-y with the vertical grooves down those grooves to the ends of the lower arcuate grooves and into those grooves. In the open positioxx of the plug only the vertical sides of each port were paralleled with lubricant filled grooves under pressure. But by rotating the valve into the closed position, each pair of horizontal grooves moved througlx 90 degrees into positions above and below the openings in the valve seat, the ends moving into-registry with the ends of a pair of vertical groves forming a four-sided lubricant-filled groove system completely surrounding each line opening and in theory preventing the leakage of fluids and gas from the line around the plug to the other side. The-primary blocking of the line fluid probably-occurred at the lubidcant-filled grooves,, and the emphasis of the patent appears, to be placed xxpon these continuous grooves. But it was expected that the grooves would be supported from the lubricant which had been smeared by rotation or squeezed by-pressure into the areas of the plug adjoining the groove, since the specification expressly referred to a “seal of lubricant,”' indicating the lubrication process itself had: sealing features. Between the full open, and closed positions of the valve single vertical grooves on opposite sides of the valve-seat would be exposed to line pressure.. However, in this position the exposed vertical grooves would be out of communication with the reservoir and the only lubricant which would be swept into the line-would be the relatively small amount them in each vertical groove. When the valve [279]*279rotated again into full open or closed position, these empty vertical grooves would again move into registry with the ends of the horizontal grooves and would again be pressed full of lubricant. In the intermediate position of the valve only one vertical groove on each side of the valve would be in communication with the lubricant chamber, and would lubricate that portion of the valve adjacent to it, while the other two vertical grooves were, as we have said, being emptied by line pressure.

In valves seldom used or set in lines through which corrosive liquids flowed, it sometimes happened that the plug would become so jammed into its seat that it could not be rotated by the usual means. This was particularly true of tapered valves.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 F.2d 277, 55 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 253, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 2789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merco-nordstrom-valve-co-v-w-m-acker-organization-inc-ca6-1942.