|
|
Electric Cable Joint Co. v. Brooklyn Edison Co., Inc., 292 U.S. 69 (1934)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Electric Cable Joint Co. v. Brooklyn Edison Co., Inc., 292 U.S. 69 (1934)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 292 U.S. 62, click here.
Electric Cable Joint Co. v. Brooklyn Edison Co., Inc. No. 611 Argued March 15, 1934 Decided April 2, 1934 292 U.S. 69
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
1. Claim 4 of Patent No. 1,172,322, to Torchio, February 23, 1916, for an improvement in protective devices for electric cable joints, held invalid because of the prior art and for want of invention.
2. The claim is for a device, in combination, for improving insulation at joints of high-tension metal-sheathed cables. The conductors in such cables are insulated from the sheath and from the metal sleeves by which the sheathing is continued at their junctions, by wrappings of pervious material saturated with an insulating oily substance. Migration and loss of this substance, caused by cutting a cable, and, more especially, by its contraction and exspansion, or " breathing," when in operation at high voltages result in air spaces within the insulation through which damaging leakages of current take place. The elements in the combination claimed to be new are: (1) the use of an insulating liquid (oil) which is fluid at ordinary working temperatures of such cables, in lieu of compounds of higher melting point, and (2) a reservoir holding a supply of such liquid and commulicating with the interior of the joint.
The Court finds (1) that use in the combination of the more fluid insulating permeant was anticipated in the prior art and fully disclosed in publications; (2) that the addition of the reservoir was also anticipated, besides being a mere mechanical adaptation. Pp. 72-79.
3. Invention may consist in adding a new element to an old combination, but the addition must be the result of invention, not the mere exercise of the skill of the calling and not one plainly indicated by the prior art. P. 79.
66 F.2d 739 affirmed.
Certiorari, 290 U.S. 624, to review the affirmance of a decree denying the validity of a patent in a suit by an assignee claiming infringement.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Electric Cable Joint Co. v. Brooklyn Edison Co., Inc., 292 U.S. 69 (1934) in 292 U.S. 69 292 U.S. 70. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=J5NLGXF1PQPZKXV.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Electric Cable Joint Co. v. Brooklyn Edison Co., Inc., 292 U.S. 69 (1934), in 292 U.S. 69, page 292 U.S. 70. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=J5NLGXF1PQPZKXV.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Electric Cable Joint Co. v. Brooklyn Edison Co., Inc., 292 U.S. 69 (1934). cited in 1934, 292 U.S. 69, pp.292 U.S. 70. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=J5NLGXF1PQPZKXV.
|