Home/Fourth Circuit/Moore v. Baltimore & O. R.

Moore v. Baltimore & O. R.

37 F.2d 884, 4 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 491, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2663
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 14, 1930
DocketNo. 2914
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 37 F.2d 884 (Moore v. Baltimore & O. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Moore v. Baltimore & O. R., 37 F.2d 884, 4 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 491, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2663 (4th Cir. 1930).

Opinion

PARK HR, Circuit Judge.

This was a suit to enjoin infringement of patent No. I, 502,050, covering dust suction apparatus for use in connection with belt conveyors in grain elevators. The defendant denies infringement and avers that the claims of the patent relied on are invalid for lack of invention and because of anticipation and prior use. The learned judge below, after an exhaustive analysis of the evidence, held the claims invalid "and dismissed the bill. Complainant has appealed.

As is generally known, grain is transported in elevators by means of belt conveyors. The use of these causes much dust, particularly at the pulley where the grain is dumped, the dust being thrown off first by the grain as it leaves the belt, and then by the belt itself as it" passes under the pulley on its return. Unless controlled, this dust is a source of grave danger and in the past has caused many disastrous fires and explosions. Suction devices for its collection and removal have been in use for many years; but their use in public elevators has been attended with much opposition, for the reason that in such elevators it is of great importance that the weight of the grain be not affected, and, if not properly applied, such devices will affeet its weight. The problem in every case is to apply the suction in such way as to remove the dust without affecting the weight of the grain; and for accomplishing this purpose various devices have been used, which we shall describe at greater length hereafter, and which, we agree with the court below, anticipate the broad claims of the patent upon which complainant relies.

The purpose of the invention is thus described by complainant in the specification of the patent:

“The objects of my invention are to provide ventilating means peculiarly adapted for use with the discharge boots and trippers of belt conveyers; to provide ventilating means incorporating hoods that are compact enough to be readily accommodated by the restricted space wherein they are required to be situated and yet which are of ample capacity to take care of all of the dust and chaff that is thrown off by the eonveyer; to provide ventilating hoods of the aforesaid character which are so designed as to attract the chaff and dust without exerting any influence over the grain or other commodity being handled by the belt; to provide a ventilating hood so designed as to cause a free and uniform flow of the air and its content therethrough, to the end that no retardation or 'choke’ in the flow is created; to provide a ventilating hood through which the air is drawn with a swirling action, causing the dust and chaff to be held in suspension thereby preventing clogging; and to provide ventilating means of the aforesaid character which is comparatively simple and inexpensive of production and is especially convenient of installation in existing types of discharge boots and trippers.”

Attached to the specification are drawings of a b.elt conveyor discharging into a receiver and of a “tripper” in action, marked Figures 1 and 2, respectively, which, for a better understanding of the points involved, we herewith set forth. It should be explained that a tripper is a mov[885]*885able combination of pulleys used for dumping the grain at any of the various bins or receptacles over which the belt conveyor passes. At the points marked 10 will be seen the specially designed “ventilating hood” which complainant purposes to attach at the points indicated. in the specification as follows, the drawings to which reference is made being copied below:

“Turning now to my improved ventilating hood, illustrated in detail in Pigs. 3 to 5 and designated 10 in all views of the drawing, the same comprises a substantially

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

Related

Stark v. City of New York
Second Circuit, 2023
Noble Co. v. C. S. Johnson Co.
139 F. Supp. 868 (E.D. Illinois, 1956)
Orrison v. C. Hoffberger Co.
190 F.2d 787 (Fourth Circuit, 1951)
Tumbler v. Baltimore Paint & Color Works, Inc.
12 F. Supp. 966 (D. Maryland, 1935)
Produce Exchange Stock Clearing Ass'n v. Helvering
71 F.2d 142 (Second Circuit, 1934)
Demco v. Doughnut MacH. Corporation
62 F.2d 23 (Fourth Circuit, 1932)
Cornec v. Baltimore & OR Co.
48 F.2d 497 (Fourth Circuit, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 F.2d 884, 4 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 491, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-baltimore-o-r-ca4-1930.