Page images


Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. February 11, 1893.)

No. 41. INVENTIONS-NOVELTY-METAL ROOFING PLATES. ond claim of letters patent No. 256,083, issued April 4, 1882, 'alter, for “a sheet-metal roofing plate having one of its lateral ned with two parallel corrugations to form a gutter, and the ral edge formed with a broad corrugation, adapted to make a h corrugations and the cap for the gutter of a corresponding

void for want of novelty, since gutters in rigid roofing plates viously known. 47 Fed. Rep. 307, affirmed. from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Illinois.

Suit by the National Sheet-Metal Roofing Company enry Smeeton to restrain the alleged infringement of a he bill was dismissed at the hearing. Complainant apfirmed. Dixon, for appellant. 5, Banning & Payson, for appellee. GRESHAM and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and BUNN, Disge.

[ocr errors][merged small]

URIAM. The decree appealed from is affirmed upon the stated in the opinion of the court below, reported in 47 -. 307.

LEIB V. ELECTRIC MERCHANDISE CO. et al.: ircuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. February 11, 1893.)

No. 56.

ters patent No. 434,087, issued August 12, 1890, to Charles Leib, for
lectric rail connector consisting of a short metallic wire with each
passing through a bolt or rivet, which is firmly inserted into a hole
ed into the rail, are void for want of novelty over the Gassett &
er patent of May, 1880, in which the connecting wire is coiled round
heads of the rivets, instead of passing through them, as well as the
stinghouse patent of July 31, 1883, and the Winter patent of April
1885, in which the ends of the wires are directly inserted in holes in
rails. 48 Fed. Rep. 722, affirmed.
eal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the
ern District of Illinois.
t by Charles Leib against the Electric Merchandise Com.

and others for alleged infringement of a patent. The bill
lismissed at the hearing. Complainant appeals. Affirmed.
nning, Banning & Payson, for appellant.
W. Parker, for appellees.

ported by Louis Boisot, Jr., Esq., of the Chicago bar.

Before GRESHAM and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and BUNN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from is affirmed upon the grounds stated in the opinion of the court below, reported in 48 Fed. Rep. 722.



(Circuit Court, D. New Jersey. January 31, 1893.)


Letters patent No. 397,336, issued February 5, 1889, to James H. Bullard, for an apparatus for burning hydrocarbon fuels, in which the oil-supply pipe and the air-supply pipe are capable of independent regulation so as to vary the character of the flame to meet the requirements of different kinds of work, were not anticipated by letters patent No. 365,789, granted to the same inventor, July 5, 1887, in which the oil and air supply were not capable of independent regulation; nor was there anything in the prior state of the art, including the earlier Bullard patent, to invalidate this

combination, though all the particular elements entering into it were old. 2. SAME.

The fact that the apparatus covered by the 1889 patent permits of the supply of oil and air to a great number of furnaces from one fuel tank, and a single air compressor governed by one regulator, is not to be left out of view in considering the validity of the patent because this feature is not referred to in the specifications, and may not originally have been per ceived by the inventor. Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U. S. 157, followed.

In Equity. These were three suits brought by the Aerated Fuel Company against the Woodbury Glass Company, the Cox & Sons Company and others, and the Cohansey Glass Manufacturing Company, respectively, for infringement of a patent. Decrees in each case for complainant.

Briesen & Knauth, for complainant.
Francis T. Chambers, for defendants.

ACHESON, Circuit Judge. Each of these three suits is upon let. ters patent No. 397,336, to James H. Bullard, dated February 5, 1889. The patented invention, the specification represents, relates to an "apparatus for securing the burning of hydrocarbon fuels and the regulating thereof." The apparatus illustrated and described comprises a burner, which, as shown, is arranged within a glass furnace, two distinct pipes running to and connected with the burner,one an oil-supply pipe leading from a liquid-fuel receptacle; the other an air-supply pipe leading from an air-compressing machine,and a regulator for automatically controlling the compressor, and maintaining the compressed air as fed to the burner at a uniform pressure. The specification states:

"A cock is provided both in the air and oil supply pipes, as seen at h and ! respectively, whereby a normal or desirable proportional issue of air and oil to the burner is secured under their proper operations."

as a single claim, which is as follows:

for securing and regulating the combustion of liquid fuel and analogous furnaces, consisting of a burner, a liquid-fuel necting said fuel tank and burner, an air compressor having conveying steam thereto for driving the same, provided with connecting said air compressor and said burner, a regulator d actuated by the pressure in said air pipe, and a connection able part of said regulator and said steam valve, whereby steam to said air compressor is regulated, and a consequent he air pressure to the burner is secured, substantially as and e described.” nere no contest as to infringement. It is conceded by nts' counsel, and must be under the uncontradicted , if the patent is valid, the defendants, respectively, e claim. As then, admittedly, the only question for the hether the plaintiff's patent is valid, we might perhaps reference to the construction to be given to the claim. y be well here to say that we do not accept the sugges

the words, "whereby the feeding of steam to said air r is regulated, and a consequent regulation of the air to the burner is secured," define the function of the entire ion.

That reading would be too narrow. The quoted (presses the specific function of the particular constituent ich it stands immediately connected, while the opening f the claim—"An apparatus for securing and regulating the tion of liquid fuel in glass-melting and analogous furnaces” ate the purpose of the combination as a whole. calidity of the plaintiff's patent is denied upon the grounds that the entire combination claimed was anticipated by letatent No. 365,789, granted to said Bullard on July 5, 1887; econdly, that in view of the previous state of the art, includhat was shown in Bullard's earlier patent, no patentable in: on is disclosed or claimed by the patent in suit. Now, the r Bullard patent cited is, indeed, for improvements in furnaces purning hydrocarbon fuels, and certainly it does exhibit many ne constituents of the combination here in question, including an compressor and an automatic regulator. But we cannot assent che defendants' proposition that the two Bullard patents show, pectively, exactly the same combination of working parts. There , we think, essential differences between the two devices in con. uction, operation, and results. In the 1887 apparatus the air pipe om the air compressor does not, as in the later construction, in to and connect with the burner, but leads to and communicates ith an air space in the upper part of the liquid-fuel tank, and, y the air pressure thus applied, oil for the burner is forced into and through a tube which extends from near the bottom of the tank, up to and through an exterior tube secured to the top of the tank, while at the same time air is forced from the air space in the tank up through an annular air passage between said inner and exterior tubes. The latter tube is provided at its outer end with a screw cap having a small central perforation through which the mingled liquid fuel and air are ejected, in proportions regu.

[ocr errors]

lated by screwing the cap in or out. Thus, it will be perceived that in the apparatus of 1887 the supply of oil to the burner de pends altogether upon the pressure of the air, whereas under the patent in suit the oil supply and the air supply are entirely inde pendent of each other. Then the apparatus of 1887 is so organized that, with respect to the oil and air supplies, it is not capable of independent regulation. Thus, the flow of oil cannot be reduced without increasing the flow of air, and so vice versa. This proved to be a most serious defect, for, as a result, the power to vary the character of the flame to meet the necessities of the work in hand was very much limited. But the two supply pipes in the apparatus of 1889, being entirely separate, and drawing their contents from distinct sources, are capable of independent regulation, so that the quantities of oil and air can be controlled independently of each other, and thereby such varying character of flame produced as is required. Undoubtedly, the regulation by means of cocks of the flow of fluids through pipes was old. Many of the prior patents in evidence show cocks employed to perform this function. Indeed, they are obvious and implied devices for the purpose. But here the point is this: that Bullard's 1887 apparatus did not admit of the independent control of the flow of oil and air by cocks, or by any other means. Therein it was radically defective.

Again, Bullard's 1889 apparatus has another important capability not to be found in that of 1887. By the earlier apparatus it was impossible to supply more than one furnace from the same fuel tank; but the 1889 construction permits of the supply of oil and air to a great number of furnaces from one fuel tank, and a single air compressor governed by one regulator. Nor is this great advantage incident to Bullard's later patented apparatus to be left out of view because it is not referred to in the specification, or even may not originally have been perceived by the inventor. erts v. Ryer, 91 U. S. 157.

Once more, it appears that in actual practice the Bullard appa ratus of 1887 was a failure, and this chiefly because its construction and mode of operation precluded the independent regulation of the oil and air. In fact, the use of the 1887 apparatus has been aban. doned. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the machines which were constructed in accordance with the earlier patent have been replaced by others made under the 1889 patent, and that these latter machines have given entire satisfaction. Upon the whole case, then, we feel quite justified in holding that the plaintiff's patent was not anticipated by Bullard's earlier apparatus. Consolidated Safety-Valve Co. v. Crosby, etc., Valve Co., 113 U. S. 157, 179, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 513; The Barbed Wire Patent, 143 U. S. 275, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 443.

We do not feel called upon to discuss at length the features of the numerous other patents of prior dates set up by the defendants. Avoiding particularity, we content ourselves with saying that while they show that the several elements here employed are in themselves old, yet none of them discloses the combination of the patent in suit. Finally, not only does the presumption of patent

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

sing from the grant of the patent stand unshaken, but tirmative proof of the patentable novelty and utility of nation. A decree in favor of the plaintiff will be entered the cases.


(Circuit Courty S. D. New York. February 6, 1893.) -TY-PLEADING. ibelant is entitled to an admission or denial of each distinct and sepIverment in his libel separately and distinctly, and an answer is ient which admits some of the averments of the libel, but concludes: enies the other allegations of the fourth article, as therein alleged, fers to the allegations of the eighth article of the answer;" such article being a narrative somewhat different from the libelant's.

averment in the answer to a libel that the persons for whose benefit ction is prosecuted "had full notice and knowledge of and partici

in the prosecution" of a former action, does not sufficiently advise belant whether evidence of some specific written notice in addition general knowledge is to be introduced, but such defect may be cured nendment.

pleader who sets forth a detailed narrative of the movements of his vessel cannot be required to add thereto averments as to other matters etail upon which his adversary may wish to have specific averments, as to which it does not appear that he has knowledge sufficient to dle him to set them forth, nor that he intends to rely upon them at trial.

Admiralty. Libel by the Virginia Home Insurance Company st John P. Sundberg. Reargument on exceptions to the an.

». A. Black, for plaintiff.
odrich, Deady & Goodrich, for defendant.

ACOMBE, Circuit Judge. Upon more careful consideration e points urged upon the reargument, I am led to the conclusion in some respects I erred in my former decision. The fifth le of the answer is an answer to the fourth article of the h It admits specifically, separately, and distinctly some of averments therein. contained, and concludes as follows: "He les the other allegations of the fourth article, as therein ald, and refers to the allegations of the eighth article of the wer.” Such eighth article is a narrative of events in some rects like the libelant's, in some differing therefrom. Except

the denial above quoted, the following allegations of fact in · fourth article of the libel are neither admitted nor denied, : is there a denial as to them of knowledge or information suffiint to form a belief: (1) That the Newport passed out to sea arough the Swash channel” in part; (2) that she so passed in

No opinion was then filed.

« EelmineJätka »