Concrete Mixing & Conveying Co. v. R. C. Storrie & Co.

Good Law
27 F.2d 838·1928 U.S. App. LEXIS 3501
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 20, 1928No. 5425California2,819 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

(after stating the facts as above). In the prior art were shown numerous patents involving the use of compressed air for conveying through pipes a wide variety of materials, such as concrete, crude oil, dredge spoil, sand, and water, grain, molten sulphur, etc. As to all prior patente the appellant insists that none is anticipatory of its combination, for that they all lack the salient feature thereof, the arch-breaking nozzle, or anything that could exercise the function thereof.

Of the prior patents we find it necessary to refer particularly to but three, the patent to Smith, No. 122,498, of January 2, 1872, and the English patents to Duckham, one No. 4,400 of 1875, and one No. 15,348 of 1885. The Smith patent was for “an improvement in the manufacture of concrete pavements and machinery for same.” The *839 specifications described the apparatus as specially adapted to the manufacture and convection of concrete composition through pipes so as to set quickly upon reaching its destination and form a solid mass of artificial stone, and uneontradicted testimony was given of the successful use of the Smith machine in conveying concrete through a pipe by compressed air. The device…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.