SEIBERT CYLINDER OIL-CUP CO."'. NEWARK LUBRICATOR MANUF'G CO.
that purpose the decree now made is to be upon the axpresscondition that it is without prejudice to the use of the testimony before any master appointed to take an account in the cause, in case such account shall be decreed. Let there be.a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, with costs, but without prejudice to the right to use the testimony and evidE:Jncetaken on the accounting on any other accounting which may be decreed.
SEmERT CYLINDER OIL-CUP Co· .". NEWARK LUBRICATOR MANUF'G Co. et ale
Oircuit Oourt, D. New Jersey. July 5, 1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONa-ANTICIPATION-LuBRICATORS.
The patent granted September 20, 1870, to John Gates, for a lubricator, in which the amount of oil supplied to the machinery can be estimated by observation of drops of water falling through the lubricating oil in a glass cylinder, and thus filling the bottom of that cylinder, or one underneath it, and causing the oil to be displaced and to pass out of an escape-pipe above by which it is carried to the engine, does not anticipate the patent granted April 29, 1873, to the same person, for an improved lubricator, by which the drops of oU, in passing to the escape-pipe, are made to pass upward through a glass cylinder filled with water, Whereby the amount supplied to the engine can be observed by the engineer.
Where the defense of two years' prior use is not set up by answer in a suit for infringement: of patent, and the eviden ce shows that the patent was issued Apri.l 29,1873, upOll an apphcation filed August 23, 1872; that the patentee commenced making drawings during the fall of 1870, and worked at it, as he had time, until they were in the shape of the one patented in 1873; and that ; the <lrl,lwings were finished and the pattern made during the fall of 1870, and the lubricator completed during the winter and spring of 1871, so that it was put on the steamer which commenced to run in the fallM 1871,-such defense does not- arise UPO!) the evidence, and an application to amend the answer for _the purpose of taking the point will be refused. The patent granted April 29, 1873, to John Gates, for an improved lnbricator, by which the drops of oil, in passing to the escape-pipe, are made to pass upward through a glass cylinder filled with water, whereby the amount supplied to the engine can be observed by the engineer, is infringed by the patent panted May 19, 1885, to Charles Couse, which includes an apparatus for foremg the oil upward through a small aperture or passage, and a nipple·shaped valve provided with a needle to concentrate the drops of oil; which thence pass into a gla!}s cylinder filled with water, through which the oil rises in drops exposed to view, up to the place of escape. whence it passes to the- machinery to be lubricated.
In Equity. Bill for infringement of letters patent. Final hearing on bill, etc. Wetmore & Jenner, for complainant. JohnDane, Jr., and A. Z. Keasbey, for de:f'endants. ,Before' .... " J and NI:lCON, J. ,
- - - ' - - . - .--.-----
-- -- I
BRADLEY, Jtlstice. Therea'retWo questions it}' this case on which its decision depends-First, whether the patent sued on (which was granted to John Gates, of Portland. Or., April 29, 1873) was anticipated by a prior patent granted to the said Gates September 20, 1'870; and, secondly, if llot,whether the defendants infringe the patent of 1873. By a carefuL comparison of the two patents granted to Gates, we are satisfied that they are for different inventions. The first, granted in 1870, is for a lubricator adapted to use on a steam-engine, in which the amount of oil supplied to the machinery can be estimated by observation of drops of water falling through the lubricating oil in a glass cylinder, and thus filling the bottom of that cylinder, or one underneath it, and causihg the oil to be displaced, and to pass out of an escape-pipe above, by which it is carried to the engine. The dropping of the water is regulated by a cock which can be managed by the hand. The other patent, granted in 1873, is for an improved lubricator, by which the drops of oil, in passing to the escape-pipe, are made to pass upward through a glass cylinder filled with water, whereby the amount supplied to the engine call be observed by the engineer, and regulated by a supply-cock managed by the hand. This distinctive feature of the two patents ismanitest by comparison; and in our judgment, the patent of 1870 does not contain any description or statement which would suggest the invention claimed in the patent of 1873. The patent of 1870 describes two methods of operation; one, by feeding into the lubricator drops of water from above. which descend through the oil in the glass cylinder, stated above, and are open to the inspection of the engineer; the other, by injecting jets of water into the bottom of the lubricator, and causing the oil above to rise in proportion to the amount of water thus injected. In the latter method, the amount of oil expelled is not subject to observation, as in the former. It is the adaptation of the machine to the former operation which is the subject of the patent. The claim of the patent of 1870 is as follows: "Having thus described my invention, I claim as new, and desire to secure
by letters patent: The hollow glass cylinder, A, vessel, B, tube, D', and pipes, F, K, all constructed and relatively arranged as shown in l!'ig. 1 of the draWings and for the purpose specified."
wattlrfall; B is a vessel underneath A, holding oil, or oil and water, and com· municating with A by two apertures in the bottom of A, which forms the top of B; the tube, D /, passes down through the center of A into the top of B, for introducing the oil; the pipe, K, enters the top of A, and admits the drops of water. which feed the machine; the pipe, F, is the escape-pipe, whieh leaves the top of A. and discharges the oil to the machinery to be lubricated."
The parts referred to in this claim are as follows: ..A is the glass cylinder containing the oil, through which the drops of
The patent of 1873 describes a lubricator arranged on an entirely different plan, adapted to keep and hold a body of water in an upper glass cylinder, and. to allow drops of oil to ascend into it from below and to rise through it to the escape-pipe at the top. The arrangement by which
WERT CYLI.NDER OIL-CUP CO. fl. NEWARK LUBRICATOR MANUP'Q CO.
this is done is to have a lower cylinder filled with oil, or oil and water, in which, of course, the oil will occupy the upper part, and an upper of glass filled with water, and to have the,two connected by a ((smj),llpassage"perforating a metallic standard ,between them, the passage being so small that when it is filled with oil from below, the water will Dot force its way downward into the lower cylinder. To aid this obstruction to the descent of the water a small nipple is placed at the top of the passage, projecting upward a little way into the water, which also, no doubt, causes the oil, in being forced upward, to form in more regular globules or drops. Water is then introduced into the lower cylinder by /I., series of drops, causing .the superincumbent oil tv rise, and press itself, drop by drop, through the small passage, and the nipple at its top, from whence it rises in drops, easily seen, through the water in the upper cylinder, and escapes by the pipe provided for that purpose. The first two claims of the second patent are as follows: "Having thus fully described my invention, what I claim as new, and desire to secure by letters patent, is (1) The described method of feeding oil, consisting in delivering the oil from the reservoir up through a body of water inclOSed in a gJ3sschamber, and discharging the same through the feed-cocks, 8ubstant.iallyas described. (2) The combination of an oil chamber with a water chamber" the latter being located over the former. and adapted to receive oil ftomtt,and deliver the same above the body of water inclosed in it, ,substantIally as' described." These ate the only claims which are drawn in question in the case. It is apparent that the method used under the patent of 1873, and the arrangement oithe apparatus and materials, are essentially different from the oil is those employed under the patent of 1870. In the one .placed above the water, in the glass cylinder, and the drops of water descend through it; in the other, water is placed above the oil, in the glass cylinder, and the drops of oil are made to ascend through it. This change of operation is effected by a change in the machinery and the method of using it, and the result is a much clearer view of the movement of the, material used. Gates, the patentee, was examined as a witness in the case, and made this distinction between the two patents. He said: ,"I applied for the patent for the drop-feed. as it was used on the steamer Cascade, in the' spring of 1870, and the patent was issued September 20,1870, for the sight-feed lubricator, shOWing tile water dropping down through oil."
As to the origin of the second invention,he said:
"I found that there was some difficulty with some oil in adhering to the glass; so that the water dropping down through the oil could not be seen so readily as desirable. Some time in the summer of 18701 conceived the idea of having the oijascend up through the water in the glass. and I then put a nipple into the bottom of the right.hand glas!,. [he had two glasses on his first apparatus.] nnd, by tilling the water-pipe with oil and ,the glass with water, there was' no trouble in feeding oil through the glass, and, observing the oil ascend in globules through the water in the glass as it went on its way to the steam-cylinder...
, This was his first experiment on the lubricator which is described and claimed in his second patent. He then says: "I commenced making drawings during the fall of 1870, and worked at it, as 1 had time, until I bad them in the shape of the one patented by me in 1873." Again he says: "I got my drawings finished 'as soon as I could, and had the pattern made <luring the fall of 1870. and bad the lubricator completed during the winter and spring of 1871. so that it was put on the steamer Emma Hayward, which was building. and commenced to run early in the fall of 1871." This evidence shows, not only the clear distinction between the first invention, patented in 1870, and the second, patented in 1873, but also answers another objection started by the defendants, namely, that the secQnd was in public use morethnn two years before the application for a patent. The application was filed August 23, 1872, and the invention had been in actual use b1,lt one year. The experiment made on the steamet Cascade in the summer or fall of 1870 was a mere experiment, which satisfied the patentee that a new and improved lubricator could be made. aud he proceeded to make his drawings and models accordingly. But there was no such Use of the invention as could preclude him from getting a valid patent upon his application made in August, 1872. Indeed, it is not clear that even this exp,eriment'was made more than two years before that time. It is true that the defense of two years' prior use was not set up in, the answer; but the counsel of the defendants thinks that it arises upon, the evidence, and applies for leave to 'amend the answer for the purpose of taking the point. Weare averse ,to allowing new issues to be made on the final hearing; but think that the evidence would not sustain any such defense if the amendment were made. On the question of infringement we have no difficulty. The defendants are making lubricators under the patent of the defendant Charles Couse, dated May 19, 1885. We have carefully examined that patent, as we)] as a model of one of the defendant's machines, and do not see how it can be doubted for a moment that it infringes the patentof 1873. It probably has great improvements; but it includes all apparatus fot forcing the oil upward through a small aperture, or passage, and a nipple-shaped valve, provided with a needle to concentrate the drops of oil, into a glass cylinder filled with water, through which which thence the oil rises in drops exposed to view, up to the place of escape, whence it passes to the machinery to he lubricated. The apparatus performs not <mIy the precise office which is performed by Gates' lubricator, but, so Jar as the operation in question is concerned, performs it by machinery substantially the same as Gates'. The method of operation is precisely the same, The defendant's lubricator, and its method of operation, are of the patent of within the very terms of the first and 1873. The complainant is entitled to a decree.asprayed in the bill.
EDWARD BARR CO. tI.' NEW YORK AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER
EDWARD BARR CO.,
Limited, et aJ.. v. NEW
(Circuit Court, So D. New York. July 18,1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-AuTOMATIC. FIRE-EXTINGUISHER-INFRINGEMENT.
The first claim of letters patent No 307,466, issued to Frank Gray, November 4, 1884, for improvements in automatic fire-extinguishing apparatus, and letters patent No. 357,987, issued to said for a modification of the above, February 15, 1887, consisting of a SYStPlli of pipes provided with nozzles· or, distributors in which the pipes run :lOm a supply-pipe of water under pr(jssure throughout the building to be protected, and are controlled by a valve located between the supply and distributing pipes, which is opened by the influence of heat, are not infringed by a device which contains the supply and distributing pipes, and the valve, and also an independent pipe leading from the building or apartment to be protected to a chamber in wbich the valve is ]'ilcated; which pipe Is sealed with a sensitive solder in the apartment to be protected, the melting' of which, destroys a vacuum in the pipe, thus releasing a diaphragm, and opening the valve.
In Equity. On bill for infringement of patents. Philip R. Voorhees, for complainants. Edmund. Wetmme, .for defendant.
WALLACE, J. The two patents in suit cover improvements in aatomatic fire-extinguishing apparatus, and belong to what is known as the "Dry Pipe System," which consists generally of a system of pipes provided with nozzles or distributors in which the pipes run from a supplypipe of water under pressure throughout the building or apartment to be protected. The system is controlled by a valve located between the supply-pipe and the distributing pipes, which cuts off the passage of watel' from the former to the latter, and is held closed by some device which may be actuated by the influenae of heat generated in the apartment to be protected, so that when fire occurs the heat acting upon the communicates its action to the ,valve. and causes it to open and permit the water to flow from the supply-pipe to the and thence to the apartment to be protected, where it is discharged to extinguish the fire. The first patent is No. 307,466, granted to Frank Gray, November 4, 1884. The claim of this patent alleged to be infringed is the first claim, and is as fullows: ..In a system of water-distributing pipes for the automatic extingUishment of fires, an independent pipe for conveying compressed air upon a valve situated between said air pipe llnd a water-distributing pipe, and excluding the water and said air from said distributing-pipe, Whereby the water is admitted to said distributing--pipe when the air is released from said air-pipe, substantially as and for the purposes set forth. II The second pa,tent is No. 357,987, granted to Frank Gray, February 15, 1887. It contains a single claim, which is as follows: "In a fire-extinguishing apparatus, in combination with an air-exhausted chamber and pipe provided with a closed aperture or apertures fitted to open for the entrance of air, a water-supply pipe prOVided with a and,a v.35F.no.7-33