ALLISON 'lI. TRUSTEES OF NEW YORK &; BROOKLYN BRIDGE.
None of these prior devices were soc'onstructed that by the action ofthe electric current the gas-cock is 'turned by a single impulse and a successionof sparks is produced at the burner tip without further motion of the I am also satisfied that this improvement over prior de. vicescOllstituted invention. . The defendants' apparatus is, the same in principle. though itscortsomewhat from the plaintiff's. The magnets have their cores· pkhl.llelwith the burner, while the magnets in the patent are subthe movable electrode has a vertical 'staritially'at right angles movement to break the while the movable electrode in the paterit a laterally vibrating movement; in defendants' apparatus the armature is horizontal instead Of vertical, and the means for breaking the circuit are somewhat different. I am of opinion, however, that the defendants' apparatus embodies the substance of the patented invention, and that changes in the details of construction should not protect them from the charge of infringement. The fact that the main features in the patented. apparatus, such as the circuit-breaker, single circuit, operating 'the gas-cocl\: directly by the armature,were old,should not limit the complainant to the exact form of mechanism found in the patent. The patent covell!. an important improvement in the art of lighting gas by, electricity, and it should receive a reasonably broad construction, and' those shoull! beheld to be infringers who accomplish the same result by substantially the same or equivalent means. Decree for complainant.
AUJISON 1'. TRUSTEES OF NEW YORK
8. D.New York. December 28,1886.)
PATEl'lTSFOR INvEl'lTIONS-No. 105.290-PIPE COUPLINGS-SCOPE OF CLADlINFRINGEMENT. . The claim of letters patent No. 105,290, ,granted July 12, 1870, relati,n g to an improvement in pipe is for rods or tubes "having tapering ends, and tapering threads upon the same, in combination with a sleeve having tapering sockets, and threads corr.esponding to those of the rods. " Held, that the terms "tapering ends" and "tapering sockets," considered in connection with the descriptive part of the specification, are to be interpreted as describing a. rod with a screw, and a socket with a tapering chamber, and that the patent is not infringed by a coupling using rods.in which the threads of the screw surround a cone-shaped stem, but the exterior lines of the threads form a cylinder, and not a cone-shaped or tapering end or screw,and in w)lich the exterior lines of the sleeve form a cylindrical chamber, and not a cone-shaped or tapering chamber.
Suit for Infringement of Patent. George Harding, for complainant. Bergen&: Dykman and Witmore &: Jenner, for defenda.nts.
, WALLACE, J. The only issue between the parties is whether the rOd coupling of the defendants is an infringement of letters patent No.
290, granted to the complaipp,nt" July 12, 1870, for an improvement in pipe couplings. The, object of theinvention described in the letters pat.ent is to effect a perfect and securejunctiol1 of tubes, pipes, rods, etc., with a socket or sleeve designed t<? receive and retain them when the ends of two rods or pipes are brought into connection in the socket. The specification .states that ,the' invention" consists of a coupling· in which tapering and vanishing screw-threads on the ends of the tubes, pipes, rods, etc., to be coupled togetb,er;are combined with a socket having internal vanishing and tapering,screw"threads corresponding to those on the tubes, rods," etc. . . In the accompanying drawinga, Fig. 1 represents an exterior view, partly in section, of the ends ·of two pipes coupled together according to the invention; Fig. 2 represents th El ordinary mode of coupling pipes together; and Fig. 3 illustrates the, of the invention. . The specification states that"It has been usual to cut a sJightlytapering screw on the ends. of the adjoining tubes, while an internal screw or thread, without any taper. was formed in the socket ; hence but a portion of this internal thread of the socket was in proper binding cop-tact with the threads of the pipes, as is clearly shown in figure 2; the·greater portion of the threads, both on the tubes and in the socket. being of no avail as a medium of effecting a tight junction of the tubes." After pointing out the defects in and objections to such screw couplings, the patentee proceeds in the specification as follows: "In order to obviate these objections. I cut on the ends of the pipes. A" and AliI (Figure 8.) a tapering screw. Instead of cutting the thread of this screw to olle uniform depth, however. I so cut it that it shall gradually van· ish until it disappears at the exterior of the tube as shown at Y. figure 8. It should be understood, however. that the thread of the screw does not vanish so abruptly as Is shown in that figure, which is exaggerated, with the view of rendering more apparent the advantages of my invention. The socket, B, figure 8, instead of having a screw-thread cut through it as in figure 2. has two screw-threads, tapering, one in one direction for receiVing the end of one tube, anel the other in another direction for receiving the end of the other tube, the tapers of each screw corresponding with that of th.e tube which it has to receive, and the screw-thread vanishes to correspond with the vanishing thread of the tube, as clearly indicated in the drawing." The claim of the patent is as follows: .. The rods or tubes, A, A', having tapering ends and tapering threads upon the same. in combination with a sleeve haVing tapering sockets and threads corresponding to those of the rods,·asset forth." The defendants contend that their.coupling does not infringe this claim, because, although their tube is cut with a vanishing thread, and their sleeve has a vanishing thread to correspond to that of the tube, their coupling does not have a rod with a tapering end or screw, or a tapering socket. In their rods the threads of the screw surround a cone-shaped stem, but the exterior lines of the threads form a cylinder, and not a cone-shaped or tapering end or screw; and the exterior lines of their sleeve form a cylindrical chamber, and not a cone-shaped or tapering chamher.
ALLISON tI. TRUSTEES OF NEW YORK &: BROOKLYN BRIDGE.
.FE.DERAL., REPO.R'l'ER. . .. ,
The case turns wholly on the meaning of the term "tapering ends" and tapering sockets," as used in the claim. If these t 'l'ms imi to be interpreted as describing a rod with a tapering screw and a socket with a ta}>ering chamber, the defendanfa[dmir\Qt infringe. If they describe a rdd with a tapering stem having vanishing threads cut upon it, and a socket to 'correspond, infringement is established. It is entirely clear that the "tapering threads" of the claim are synonymous with the is,hing threads" of the specification. i, The patentee was the first to colllpine in a coupling a sleeve and screw in which a vanishing male were made to with each other. By doing th:ia; he effected a more perfect metallic colitact throughout between tne sOcket and' the screw, and made a more perfect and securejoint than had been done before. The expert for the defendants admits that he knew of no instance in the state of the art in which a vanishing screw-thread cut tapering mandrel or cone was combined with a tapering female thread cut upon the surface of a hollow cone prior to the date of tb'e patent in que$tion. The patentee was therefore entitled to claiin broadly a sleeve or socket and screw in which a ·vanishing male and female thread were made to correspond with each other. But tbe this case is whether the terms of his claim, when interpreted. as they must be, by are not narrower than the real invention, and such as to enable the defendants to deny infringement. The claJm, by itself, so fflr as it relates to the rods, is capable of an interpretation which.. would fully cover the real If a rod with a tapering end 'is 'to be regarded as a rod in whic1;J. the stem of the screw is tapering, the claim is ample, and embraces the rod of the defendant. On the othet:hand, if the term "tapering end" is intended screw,-",that is, a rod in which the exto describe a rod with terior lines of the screw-:tlireads form a taperingenq,-the coupling of the defendant is not an infringement. A rod wito. a tapering end may mean a rod in which the stem, mandrel, or solid part of the end tapers, or it may mean one in which the end, Byraw-thread included, as adapted to be fitted into a sleeve or recess, is tapering. The term, as used in the claim, is therefore capable of two meanings; and; heing ambiguous, the true meaning must be ascertained by resort to the descriptive part of the speCification in order to discover what the patentee describes as new, and what the public have a right to understand was intended to be claimed. An examination of the specification denotes quite plainly that the patentee supposed that the gist of his improvement upon the couplings previously in use consisted in substituting a tapering screw having vanishing threads, in conjunction with a sleeve or socket adapted to receive such a screw, for tape:dng screws without the vanishing thread, and a socket not adapted to receive a tapering screw. The drawings distinctly denote this. In describing the advantages of his invention he dwells upon the objections to the use of a "slightly tapering screw" with a socket which does not taper to receive it. Each of the drawings shows a tapering screw, but Fig. 2, which shows the objeclionable coupling, has no .vanishing thread UpOll the screw, and has no tapering recess in the socket, ,::
while Fig. 3, which illustrates the improvement, shows a tapering screw with a vanishing thread, and a tapering recess with a vanishing thread. Nevertheless, the inquiry is not what:the patentee may havesupposed, but what he has described, his invention to be. He states, in the general state):Uent of the nature of his invention, that the tubes are to have "tapering and vanishing screw-threads," not "tapering or vanishing." IIe points0ut the objections to the use of a "slightly tapering screw" on the tubes in the old coupling, with a socket which did not taper to receive it. Then, :in describing the difference between his old one, he says that he cuts a "tapering screw" on the end Qfchis tube; but, inflteadof cutting his threads at a uniform depth, he:cuts them so that the thread sbaUvanish gradually until it disappears. He thus declares unequivocally that what he has done which is new is to make a tapering screw with a peculiar form of thread. The specification contains no suggestion to insiicate that a rod having a tapering stem, but not a tapering screw, could be em,ployed. Such a stem could not be employed WIth the socket described in the specification.' The specification requires the ends of the rod to be adapted to fit into a tapering recess, (las clearly indicated in the drawing." 'The claim itself makes a tapering element., A tapering socket is one sleeve adapted to receive a tapering screw: Read by the aid of the context, jt does not seem open to fair, doupt that the rods with' tapering ends and tapering. threads specified in the claim are rods with a tapering screw and vanishing threads, upon the ends. Some significance should also be attached to description, of the rods in the claim' by a reference to the drawings, whIch shows a rod with a tapering screw. It follows that the bill must be dismissed.
THE CHADWICKE. BOLCKOW) VAUGHAN
& Cb;, Limited, v.
(lJi8triet Oourt, 8. D. New York. January 19,1887.)
CHARTER PARTY-BII,L OF LADING-INHARMONIOUS CLAUSES-CONSTRUCTION_
Where 'the provisions of a ch1l.rterparty are inharmonious, the generai intent. ali evidenced by its written portions, and its e"lident leading purpose, should control the minpr IRc;>visions. Similar incongruities between the bilI of lading and the charter patty will also be controlled, as between the ship and the charterer, by the'charter-party, as the more deliberate instrument In expressing. the intent. Unless, there is sufficient evidence of a waiver of the provisions of the charter, or of some new contract, mere loose and inharmonious ()xpreasions in the bill of )adin/l.'. which refer to the charter, will not Sll pefsede thEi latter, as' respects matters which the charter was clearly designed,to cover. , On 'January 11, 1886, at Middlesbro' on Tees, the libelants chartered the O. W' take 1,300 tous of iran, and "proceed to the port ofNew Yorki; Pe,rth Am. boy, Hoboken, or Brooklyn, and there to deliver the same as ordfJi'ed on arrival.
ALTERNATIVE PORTS-DIFFERENT COLLECTroN DISTRICTS.
2, SAME-DELIVERY, AT ONE OF SEVERAL PORTS "AS ORDERED C)N ARRIVAL"-