OpenJurist

LOUD tI. STONE.

72l

ltS I have said, that has not yet been so clearly settled that I ought to grant a preliminary injunction against the Miller lantern as an infringement of the third, fourth, and fifth claims of the reissue. It follows that the motion of the defendant should be granted, and that the injunction should be dissolved.

LOUD tI. STOKE.

(Oi'i'cuitOoU1't, D. Massachusetts. May 3, 1882.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PUMPS FOR VESSELS.

Considering the state of the art, the patentee of a pump should not be limited to a diaphragm chamber placed at the side of the uptake. A pump otherwise similar, but varying only in having the diaphragm over the uptake,.is an infringement. .

In Equity. James E. Maynaaier and Freak. Dodge, for complainant. T. L. Wakefield, for defendant. LOWELL, C. J. The plaintiff is the owner of the patent No. 188,879, granted to one Eells and himself, for an improvement in ships' pumps, in March, 1877. The patentees describe their invention to consist"In the arrangem'ent of a diaphragm chamber. placed at the side of the uptake, and of valves in the upper part of the uptake, which, acting in connection with said diaphragm chamber, constitute a pump wbich bas a straight uptake, baving no obstruction in it except two puppet valves, wbich are placed at the extreme upper end, and are so accessible as to be removed at any time by tbe band alone, thus leaving tbe uptake free to be cleansed, or used as a sounding well."

They show by description and drawings the mode of constructing this pump. The single claim is:
"Tbe combination of tbe diaphragm pump, D, C, D', A, with the valve chamber, H, in the uptake; said chamber being provided with valves, K, K', all operating togetber, substantially as described."

The plaintiff's pump is proved to be a valuable one for ships, and to contain a new combination of puppet or poppet valves, easily adjusted and removed by hand, with the diaphragm pump. The important and difficult question is whether the invention is infringed by a pump in which the diaphragm is placed over the uptake instead v.1l,no.7-46

722

FEDEBALBEPORTER.

of at one side. The plaintiff placed his diaphragm at one side, in order to obtain free access to his straight uptake and his puppet valves, for convenient cleansing and sounding. The defendant's pump, invented by Mr. Edson, has, so far as I can judge, several improvements of construction over the Loud pump; and the described advantages of the Loud pump are obtained in a somewhat different way. There is a straight uptake, with large accessible puppet valves, removable by hand; but the diaphragm is placed over the uptake, and is made in an annular form, so that access to the uptake is through the open top of the diaphragm. Considering the state of the art, I do not think the plaintiff should be limited to a diaphragm situated at one side of his uptake. TlJ,e essence of his improvement was that the chamber and valves should be so arranged ina diaphragm pump that they could be reached and the valves be removed by hand, for the purposes specified, and this imprQvement the defendant has retained, whatever else he may have added. Deoree for the oomplainant.

LAMB v. HAMBLEN and others.

(Ce'rcuit Court, D. Ma.ssachusettB. ItIay 10,1882.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PRIOR CONCEPTION-NOT TO INVALIDATE PATENT.

Where a person conceives an invention and presents specimens of his device made by hand, but he does not teach the world how to make it in his specifications, and another person invents a machine for the purpose of manufacturing the article, and obtains a patent therefor, such patent is valid for the new article, and subject to infringement.

In Equity·

.John A. Loring and Wm. H. Drury, for complainant. Benj. F. Thurston. Samuel A. Duncan, and Robert H. Duncan, for

defendants. LOWELL, C. J. This suit is brought upon patent No. 124,011, issued to David A. Ritchie, for a pipe or tube mll.de by spirally winding a strip of metal and uniting its edges by a grooved or flanged seam or joint substantially as described. It is Root v. Lamb,7 FED. REP. 222, with the parties reversed, and the evidence is substantially what it was in that case. Ritchie was the first to introduce a pipe made of sheet metal with a spirally-wound folded seam; and the pipe