Invalidity dossier
US 232139
Added 9/21/2026, 9:33:43 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 232,139
Title: Vapor-Burner
Inventor: James A. Marsh, of Cleveland, Ohio
Filed: June 18, 1880
Granted/Published: September 14, 1880
Publication number: US232139A
Assignee: None stated in the supplied text
Status listed: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 1897-09-14)
Purpose. The patent describes a gasoline vapor-burner that generates vapor in a heated chamber and burns it as a mixed gas-and-air flame. It includes a self-sustaining starting cycle: gasoline is run into the drip-cup H and ignited to supply initial heat; once the gasoline in the vaporizing chamber B vaporizes, the valve is reopened and the burner's own heat, transferred through the rest D, sustains vaporization.
Plain-language scope. The claims cover three combinations: (1) a commingling chamber G with the burner C and support/rest D; (2) the open-ended and open-bottomed commingling chamber G with the burner C, vaporizing chamber B, and drip-cup H; and (3) the circular hollow ring-burner C with a support D having a central projection D'. Other disclosed features include an inlet pipe A, a needle-valve E on a screw shaft, a short angled tube B' directing vapor against the top of chamber G, continuous external perforations on the ring burners (and optional inner perforations to play jets onto support D'), a thickened lower front portion e¹ raising opening d' to drain escaped gasoline back to the drip-cup, and asbestos or fine-wire filling a/b in pipes A and B to regulate gasoline flow automatically. Support D' may be hollow (forming part of the vaporizing chamber) or solid (acting as a heater-plate); an under-pipe may substitute for D and D' (Figs. 8–9).
Not established by the excerpt. The supplied text does not establish any assignee or ownership transfer, the application number, foreign counterparts, or litigation/validity matters. It also does not establish whether the listed "Similar Documents" were cited as prior art against this patent.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US232139](/patent/US232139)/en
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:02:09 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 232139. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.