Wall Pump & Compressor Co. v. Gardner Governor Co.

28 F.2d 334, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2358
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedSeptember 13, 1928
DocketNos. 3811, 3816
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 F.2d 334 (Wall Pump & Compressor Co. v. Gardner Governor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wall Pump & Compressor Co. v. Gardner Governor Co., 28 F.2d 334, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2358 (7th Cir. 1928).

Opinion

ALSCHULER, Circuit Judge.

The appeals involve 9 of the 53 claims of United States patent No. 1,450,032, to Gardner, March 27,1923, application filed September 23, 1919, for improvements in two-stage air compressor mechanism used mainly in garages, filling stations, etc., to supply air for automobile tires. Wall Pump & Compressor Company (herein called defendant) appeals from so much of the decree of the District Court as holds valid and infringed claims 42, 47, 49, and 51; and Gardner Governor Company (herein called plaintiff), as-signee of the patent, appeals from so much of the decree as holds void claims 4,14, 16, 20, and 24.

In view of the defense, claim 51 is typical. It is:

"51. In a compressor mechanism, in combination, coaxially disposed high and low pressure cylinders having flanged air cooling jackets, a parallel intercooler there-above and having a similar flanged jacket, an aftereooler parallel to and connected beneath said high pressure cylinder and having a similar flanged jacket, pistons in said cylinders, a flywheel operatively connected to said pistons and having fan blades directing a flow of cooling fluid over the flanged jacket of each of said elements, a motor driving said flywheel, a pressure controlled motor controlling switch, and means operated upon actuation of said switch to relieve the pressure in said aftereooler and purge the latter of liquid.”

All the claims of the patent are for a combination; none for a specific structure of any element.

Fig. 2 of the patent is:

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

Related

Detroit Motor Appliance Co. v. Taylor
66 F.2d 319 (Seventh Circuit, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 F.2d 334, 1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 2358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wall-pump-compressor-co-v-gardner-governor-co-ca7-1928.