Anthracite Separator Co. v. Pollock
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
In Equity. Suit by the Anthracite Separator Company against James Pollock and the Parrish Coal Company for infringement of letters patent Nos. 629,590, 629,591, and 629,592, for an ore and coal separator, granted to Frank Pardee July 25, 1899. On final hearing.
Read the full summary
In Equity. Suit by the Anthracite Separator Company against James Pollock and the Parrish Coal Company for infringement of letters patent Nos. 629,590, 629,591, and 629,592, for an ore and coal separator, granted to Frank Pardee July 25, 1899. On final hearing. All of the claims of each of the patents are relied on, and are as follows: First Patent. 1. A machine for separating ore, coal, etc., by gravitation, centrifugal action and frictional resistance, comprising a suitably-supported spiral way forming a floor along which the substances pass, an inlet thereto and an outlet therefrom, said…
1Opinion of the Court
ARCHBARD, District judge.
There is no particular difficulty in this case. The patents in suit are valid, and the defendant’s infringement of them is clear. The structure which they cover is a device specially designed for use in an anthracite coal breaker, to assist in separating the coal from the slate and “bone,” with which it is unavoidably mingled as it comes out of the mines, hi the preparation of anthracite *110coal for market, it has both to be cleaned and to be divided up into the different sizes which are current and have been-found to be of convenient use. And for this purpose it is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Gayler v. WilderSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Acme Flexible Clasp Co. v. Cary Mfg. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1899
- Ajax Metal Co. v. Brady Brass Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1907
- School District v. Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
3Cited by7 opinions
- Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Diamond Patent Co. v. S. E. Carr Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1914
- Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1926
- Boyce v. Pyrene Mfg. Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1923
- Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. v. Eibel Process Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1921
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.