Legal Opinion

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

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 20, 1928No. 5425PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge

(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…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Concrete Appliances Co. v. GomerySupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. Armstrong v. De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922
  3. James E. Tompkins Co. v. New York Woven Wire Mattress Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1907
  4. Mayer v. MutschlerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
  5. C. F. Mueller Co. v. A. Zeregas SonsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. United Chromium v. General Motors CorporationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API