BRADLEY and others v. DULL and others.
(Oircuit Court, W. D. Pennsylflania.
In Equity. Bakewell cf Kerr, for complainants. George H. Ohristy, for defendants. ACHESON, J. The grounds of defense are-First, that the plain. tiffs have not shown title to the patent sued on; and, secondly, that there has been no infringement by the defendants. 1. The patent was granted on December 12, 1871, to Allen H. Bauman. He subsequently died intestate, an'd letters of tion upon his estate were duly issued to Reuben F. Bauman, who as administrator sold and assigned the patent to the plaintiffs. The defendants controvert the title thus acquired, maintaining that upon the death of the patentee, intestate, the patent became ves"ted in his heirs, and therefore that the administrator was without authority to make sale and assignment thereof. The argument is based on the change in the patent law made by the twenty-second sPction of the act of July 8, 1870, (reproduced in section 4884 of the Revised Statutes,) whereby it is enacted that the patent shall contain "a grant to the patentee, his heirs or assigns," the previous legislation having provided for a grant to the patentee, his heirs, administrators, execu- , tors, or assigns. This change, in connection with some other proviso ions of the existing law, it is contended indicates an intention on the part of congress to secure the benefits of the invention to the heirs of the deceased patentee, in case of intestacy, to the exclusion of the administrator. An impressive argument was made by counsel in.Bupport of this view. But the contrary has just been decided in the first circuit in the case of Shaw Relief Valve 00. v. Oity of New Bedford, 19 FED. REP. 753, in which was involved the identical question now before me. To the able opinion of Judge LOWELL in that case I can add nothing. Adopting his conclusion I must overrule this defense. 2. Whether or not the defendants infringe depends on the construction to be given to the claim. The SUbject-matter of the patent is a . v.19,no.13-58
machine for drying sand and gravel. The invention (so the specification declares) relates to the combination of iron or metal pipe or pipes, so constructed 2,nd arrauged in parallel and longitudinal lines as to form a surface upon which the wet sand or gravel is placed to be dried by the application of fire or steam. The surface formed by the pipe or pipes forms the bottom of a box or frame which contains the wet sand or GraveL The pipe or throughout the whole surface are heated by fire or steam passing through them, sO as to dry the sand or gravel, which, when dried, slips and passes through the openings or l:1pacel:1 between the lines of pipe, the wet sand orgravel in the box or frame above drying gradually and passing through, ready for shipment a-nd use. "AA is the box or frame in which the wet sand or gravel is placed preparatory to being dried. The bottom of this box or frame is.formed by the setsof pipes shown by cc, etc. On the surface formed by these pipes the wet sand or gravel rests and adheres until it becomes dried, when it passes through the openings or spaces between the pipes." If fire is used, the pipes are heated from a fire-chamber at one end, the fire, heat, and smoke passing through the pipes into flues at the other end; but the arrangement described for heating the is somewhat different when steam is employed. In the body of the specification occurs the following passage : "Immediately underneath the whole of the surface formed by the pipes is placed a wire sieve, FP; to prevent the sand or gravel from passing too rapielly through the spaces or openings between the pipes, and befol'e the same is sufficiently dried; ,the eieve so used to be coarse or fine, according as the sand or gravel is coarse or fine." There is but a single claim, which is in these words: "The app:tratus herein described ,for drying gravel or sand, consisting of the fire-chamber, tlues"heating pipes, and case, all constructed and arranged substantially as set forth." The word "case" does not appear in the descriptive part of the specification, and is used in the clairnonly. What does the term comprel16ud? The defendants insist that it includes the sieve, FF, as .an essential constituent; and as they do not use a sieve or any sub. stitute therefor, it is contended that they do not infringe. Webster defines "case" to be "a covering, box, or sheath; that which incloses or contains." Now, turning to the specification we discover that AA is a "box or frame" in which the wet sand or gravel is placed to be dried. What constitutes the bottom of this box? Is it the sieve? Certainly not, if the specification is to furnish the answer; for it distinctly asserts, not Once only, but twice, that. the bottom of the box or frame, AA, is composed of sets of pipes so constructed as to form a surface upon which the wet sandor gravel. rests during the drying process. We have, therefore, the ",case" complete in all its parts without the aid of the sieve, FF. In fact, it is not an essential part of the ma-chine, for without its co-operation the apparatus successfully performs
LLOYD V. liIILLEB.·.
its contemplated work. The truth seems to be that the sieve, under certain conditions, may be a serviceable addition to the machine, but is not an indispensable part. And as it is not mentioned in the claim, and is not necessary either to constitute the "case" or to the successful working of the apparatus, it would seem to be a fair conclusion that is not an element of the patented combination. This view but conforms to the spirit of the rule for the interpretation of patents authoritatively declared in Klein v. Russell, 19 Wall. 466, where it is said:
"The court should proceed in a liberal spirit, ,so as to sustain the patent and the construction claimed by the -patentee himself, if this can be dOne consistently with the language he has employed." .
Let a decree be entered in favor of the plaintiffs.
(Ci1'cuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. February 12,1884.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTION8-PUDDLlNG-FmlliAcE.
Letters patent No. 135,650, granted February 11, 1873, to E. Lloyd, for an improvement in puddling-furnaces, construed, and held, not to be infringed by the defendants
The plaintiffs' invention, which sccl1res protection from the tntense heat to the walls of the chimney or stack of the puddling-furnace, by means of an opening into the stack at its base, whereby a current of air drlLwn from an airconduit underneath the furnace-bed is permitted to enter the stack, held not to be infringed by a construction which secures such protection to said walls at the base of the stack by an external circulation of air.
·ation of the hearth-plate under the neck] is an air-conduit, G, which extends
In Equity. . D. F. Patterson and E. E. Cotton, for complainant. Bakewell &: Kerr and George H. Christy, for respondents. ACHESON, J. The plaintiff's letters patent - No. 135,650, dated February 11, 1873-are for an in furnaces for boiling, heating, and puddling iron. The objects to be attained thereby as stated in the specification, are the pl'evention of the rapid burning out of the hearth-plate and the base of the chimuey or stack, and the facilitating of the combustion of the inflammable gases in the furnace by supplying air thereto, thereby utilizing fuel and preventing largely the escape of smoke. The furnace described in the specification and accompanying drawing-aside from' theplaitltiff's improvementsis a puddling furnace of the well-known kind, having the ordina·ry exit·fiue leading into the high chimney or stack. The invention is thuB described: Beneatll the hearth-plate. c. and a plate, e, [Which is merely the continuII