Buffalo Forge Co. v. City of Buffalo
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York. Suit by the Buffalo Forge Company against the City of Buffalo and Thomas & Smith, Incorporated. From decree for complainant, defendants appeal. Action is on claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of patent to Willis M. Carrier No. 854,270, granted May 21, 1907, for a “method of heating and humidifying air.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York. Suit by the Buffalo Forge Company against the City of Buffalo and Thomas & Smith, Incorporated. From decree for complainant, defendants appeal. Action is on claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of patent to Willis M. Carrier No. 854,270, granted May 21, 1907, for a “method of heating and humidifying air.” The patentee’s stated purpose is to automatically regulate the temperature and humidity of fresh air especially in textile mills, and to do so “regardless of external atmospheric conditions within limits,” by…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] 1. Study of Carrier’s plan of operation (without naming it as a process or method) clearly differentiates the prior art relied on by defendants.1 In the patentee’s practice, air tempered (i. e., warmed if necessary) to 40°-45° F. is drawn from without a building into a spraying chamber, and there saturated (i. e., loaded with all the humidity it can carry) with or by means of water warm enough to raise the temperature to approximately 60° F. It then passes over or through an apparatus, usually of baffle-plates, which removes the free water particles…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse Westinghouse v. Boyden Power-Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Expanded Metal Co. v. BradfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Risdon Iron & Locomotive Works v. MedartSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- United States Ex Rel. Steinmetz v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Michigan Carton Co. v. Sutherland Paper Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1928
- Tug River Lumber Co. v. SmitheyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1929
- Petroleum Rectifying Co. of California v. Reward Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1919
- Auditorium Ventilating Corp. v. Greater Rochester Properties, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1929
- Concrete Mixing & Conveying Co. v. Ulen Contracting Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1925
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.