Polygon Products Corp. v. Kant-Rust Products Corp.

292 F. 569, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2985
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedJuly 5, 1923
DocketNo. 2980
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 292 F. 569 (Polygon Products Corp. v. Kant-Rust Products Corp.) 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
Polygon Products Corp. v. Kant-Rust Products Corp., 292 F. 569, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2985 (3d Cir. 1923).

Opinion

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

On March 9, 1920, there was granted to Charles Matthew Abbott, assignor to Polygon Products Company, the plaintiff, patent No. 1,333,363, for a compound for penetrating interior corrosion. Thereafter the plaintiff filed a bill charging defendant with infringing sundry claims thereof. On final hearing the court below, in an opinion reported at 291 Fed. 702, held infringement was not shown, and from a decree dismissing its bill, the plaintiff took this appeal.

In view of the novelty of the disclosures of this patent, and because we have arrived at a different conclusion from that of the court below, we deem it proper to set forth at some length the reasons thereto moving us. In doing so, we will follow the course laid out by the patentee, who, in his specification said:

“ * - $ This invention is capable of. a great variety of use. Its function in the removing of rusty nuts is so illustrative and so readily understood that the invention will he herein discussed largely with relation to its use for such a purpose and under such conditions.”

Of course, the self-penetrating power of oils was always recognized as an aid in unscrewing rusted bolts and nuts, but the fact remained that the physical force of the wrench, tongs, chisel, and hammer was the used method. Into this field of the metal art, as we view it, Abbott, an experienced chemist, in making his invention, brought into [570]*570practical, commercial, and novel use the science of colloidal chemistry, which, though theoretically known 'for some years, has only of late ones been practically applied to the metal and clay acts. In that respect, Prof. Jackson, now of Columbia University, and for 16 years prior chief chemist and director of the Municipal Laboratories of New York, referring to colloid chemistry, said:

“It is comparatively new. Only within the last 5 or 10 years has it been practically applied to industrial work. Certain theories regarding it have been in existence since 1862, when Graham, who was supposed to be the father of colloid chemistry, propounded his ideas regarding these substances or this state of matter. But as applied to the industries, as far as I know, it has not been taught in any university, except Columbia, and only there for the last 3 or 4 years.”

'It was into this unoccupied field of major metal corrosion, in which interior fluid penetration played no effective part, that Abbott entered and made a novel, useful, and inventive use of colloids and lubricants, through the aid of penetrants; the two former being the effective anti-corrosion elements when the interior of the corroded zone was reached, and the penetrant being the carrier that freighted them to an effective working station. The agencies and process are clearly stated in his specification as follows:

“Taking, therefore, for example, the problem of loosening a nut having its threads rusted or otherwise corroded, or held against rotation, it is to be noted that, the larger the nut or other part to be removed and the greater the rusted or otherwise united surfaces, the more difficult and the more inaccessible the cause of trouble becomes. Obviously a small nut, which requires little force to turn, may under certain conditions be wrenched free, even though seriously rusted or otherwise held, but in the case of large nuts and other forms of threaded fastenings, where the bearing surfaces are of bonsiderable extent and where multiple threads of low pitch and normally close fit are employed, the problems of reaching interior rust and the like have been so difficult as to have been considered impracticable. •
“In addition to actual reaching of interior rust by a disintegrating agent, there is in most practical situations a need also for the presence in the locality of the interior rust of a lubricant, as most rust or corrosion is not eliminated, initially at least, but merely loosened, and the presence of a lubricant greatly facilitates the initial relative movement, which permits the loosening and ultimate removing of the parts. The problem, therefore, involves not only the presence of a penetrating agent capable of disintegrating rust or other corrosion, but also a penetrating lubricant. Here, again, there is difficulty on account of the reluctance of viscous lubricant to enter capillary tubes or planes, and difficulty of holding against volatilization both a lubricant and a corrosion penetrant capable of penetrating such minute interstices. I have overcome, however, these difficulties by a combination of factors, in which I combine a lubricant and a corrosion penetrating agent in such a way as causes the lubricant to act as a carrier, having the function of retarding or practically preventing the evaporation of the corrosion disintegrant, while permitting the latter perfect freedom of penetration, while the corrosion disintegrant still retains'its penetrating quality, co-operates with its hi-, bricant as a carrier and in giving thereto a penetrating character.”

These elements, the penetrant, lubricant, and colloid, each limited to certain characteristics, Abbott embodied in his second or generic process claim as follows:

“The process of releasing rust films between adherent surfaces which consists in applying to the surfaces a liquid hydrocarbon of low viscosity and a material colloidally soluble therein and a relatively viscous lubricant.”

[571]*571It will thus be seen that not all penetrants, every lubricant, or any colloid are used in his process, but, first, the penetrant must be “a liquid hydrocarbon of low viscosity,” or, as stated in the specification:

“The penetrant in turn must hear certain relation to the lubricant, as well as to the material upon which the compound is to be used; that is to say, the penetrant must not chemically react with the metal or material of the part or mechanism to be treated, must not have any reaction with the lubricant, and preferably is a solvent for the lubricant.”

Second, the lubricant has also certain limitations and characteristics, or, as stated in the specification, it has—

“the function of retarding or practically preventing the evaporation of the corrosion disintegrant. 9 * * The lubricant must have the same absence of reaction upon the parts. * * * The lubricant should furthermore have as a property, a retarding effect upon the volability of the penetrant.”

And, third, the colloid is likewise of a particular kind, for, as stated in the specification, it, as well as the lubricant, must be of low viscosity, must be soluble and capable of forming a protective, viz.:

“The. colloid preferably is colloidally soluble in the combined penetrant and lubricant, and preferably tends to increase the viscosity as little as possible. The colloid must therefore bear a certain relation to the material used as the penetrant and lubricant. * * * The colloid should therefore be of average maximum efficacy for forming a protective colloid for those forms of rust or other causes of sticking most common in practical usage.”

The operation of the compound is clearly explained by Prof. Jackson who testified:

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

Related

Philip A. Hunt Co. v. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works
72 F. Supp. 865 (E.D. New York, 1947)
Manning v. Silloway
261 A.D. 99 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1941)
Donner v. Sheer Pharmacal Corporation
64 F.2d 217 (Eighth Circuit, 1933)
Kaumagraph Co. v. Superior Trademark Mfg. Co.
2 F. Supp. 360 (E.D. New York, 1933)
Tolfree v. Wetzler
22 F.2d 214 (D. New Jersey, 1927)
Polygon Products Co. v. Kant-Rust Products Corp.
2 F.2d 245 (Third Circuit, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
292 F. 569, 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 2985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polygon-products-corp-v-kant-rust-products-corp-ca3-1923.