in the quotation I have just given from the complainant's specification; but it seems to me, under his specifications and first claim , that the complainant is .not confined to broad wings or beaters, such as are shown in the drawings of the patent, but may use any projections or disks which, when placed at or near the entrance to the shelling deviees, will force the ears (')f corn into those shelling devices, so they may be operated upon. Being, therefore, of opinion that the defendants' spiked shaft at the entrance to the throat of his machine, revolving in the direction in which corn is running, is substantially the same device covered by the complainant's patent, or such a one as the complainant has a right to construct under his specifications and claims, I must find that the defendants have infringed as charged, and give a decree for an injunction and' accounting.
WIGHT FIRE-PROOFING Co.
CHICAGO FIRE-PROOF Co.
(Oircuit Court, No D. Itlinoi8. June 80, 1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ANTICIPATION-FIRE-PROOll' COLUMNS.
Patent No. 154,852, issued September 8, 1874, to William H. Drake and Peter B. Wight; for fire-proof columns, consisted of an iron pillar with radial webs of iron issuing from it, the spaces between being filled with closely fitting gores of wood or other suitable material, extending beyond the webs, the outer line of the gore having such shape as was necessary to give the column the exterior form desired, the spaces between the gores to be filled with concrete or other fire-proof material, The inventor generally substituted fire-clay bricks, suitably moulded, for the wooden gores, filling the interstices with plastic fire-clay. An English patent to one Hogg, in 1872, was for a plan for fire-proofing columns and other portions of buildin.ll's by surrounding them with fire-clay or other fire-proof material, filling the interstices with plastic tire-clay or something analogous, this being adapted to a column made in any shape. The object of both inventors was to exclude heat from the iron, and that of Drake and Wight was alsoto prevent water used in case of fire from coming in contact with the columns and injuring them. Hela, that the Hogg invention anticipated that of Drake snd Wight.
Letters patent Nos. 191,662, June 5, 1877, and 191,887, January 29, 1878, were for improvements in said fire-;rroof columns. The improvement in the first named, consisted in "buttons screwing to the webs projecting so as to hold the gores to their places, the recess between the ends of the webs and the gores being dovetailed in shape to hold the concrete or other fire-proof msterial, discarding the batten used in the first patent to hold the gores. ];n the second patent, a flange was cast on the ends of projecting wing'S to the columns, the gores thus being held in place, having the same beveled or dovetailed recess as before, and to be filled with like material, the gores being grooved. Defendants' column, having no dovetailed recess between the gores and ends of the webs, nor the grooved gore. does not infringe either patent.
In Equity., Bill for injunction against infringement of patents. G. L. Chapin, for complainant. ) E. S. Ohesbrough, for defendants.
WIGHT FIRE-PROOFING CO. V. CHICAGO FIRE-PROOF CO.
BLODGETT, J. The bill in this cose charges infringement by defendants of the following patents., viz. : Patent No. 154,852, granted September 8, 1874, to William H. Drake and Peter B. Wight, for an "improvement in fire-proof columns;" patent No. 191,662, granted June 5, 1877, to William H. Drake ahd Peter B. Wight, for an "improvement in fire-proofcolunms;" patent No. 191,887, granted January 29,1878, to Peter B. Wight, for an" improvement in fire-proof columns;" for which alleged infringements the complainant seeks an injunction and accounting. In the first-mentioned pa,ent the object of the invention is stated to be"To provide a column, post, or other architectural support for buildings, which shall have the combined advantages of wood and iron for withstanding fire and the effect of water upon heated iron. The nature of the invention is said in the specifications to cons.ist of an iron pillar of suitable length and size to support, or partially support, such a part of an edifice or bnilding as may be desired. The core, as shown, has a cruciform shape, but it may have any desired number of radial webs, between which are placed closely fitting gores of wood, which are held in place by iron battens, secured to the webs 01 the core by screws, as hereinafter described and shown. * * * These gores are made of wood or other suitable material, and to fit the webs closely, and to extend somewhat outwardly beyond them. * * * In lhis case the contour of a horizontal section is circular, the outer lines of the gores having the form of segments. They may, however, be made in a different form, as, for instance, their outer sides may be straight, making the column work." square, or they may be fluted or ornamented with any sort of And the utility of the device is statr.'! in the specifications in the following paragraph: ..It is well known that iron columns heated in the burning buildings are very liable to buckle, hut if such columns are not thus rendered inadequate to carry their respective loads, water (used to extinguish flames) coming in contact with them will cause their destruction. or otherwise impair their strength, when heated, so as to cause the building to give way. The wooden gores in our columns, although subjected to the heat of the burning building, wlll consume so slowly that the contents of the building will be burned before the iron cores receive any material damage."
It will be observed that the specifications require the cores to extend beyond the ends of the webs or wings of the column, and over this space, between the gores and the ends of the web, there was to be a batten, which was to be held by screws entering the end of the web. This space between the gores, the end of the web, and the batten, the specifications provide, may be filled with concrete, or any suitable non-heat-conducting material, to prevent the heat from communicating with the web. Only the first claim of this patent is alleged to be infringed by the defendants, which is in the following words: "(1) The core, A, provided with radiating webs, B, in combination with the gores, C, as set forth." The second patent, granted June 5, 1877, purports upon its face to be an improvement upon the patent of September, 1874, and consists mainly in what the patentees call "buttons," which are fastened to the ends of the webs of the iron cores by screws, or other suitable means; and these buttons project. 8ufliciently beyond the. ends of the web to form
abutment oretop, against which a portion althe gore will be held, so as to confine the gores in the angles of the iron column. As in the first patent, the gores are to project or extend beyond the ends of the web, and'leave a space to be filled with concrete, or some non-conducting sub.. stance, so as to shut off the heat from the ("nds of the webs; and the recess formed between the ends of the webs and the periphery of the goreg is to be made dovetailed shape, so that such recess will retain the crete, or other fire-proof material with which it is to be filled, without the aid of a batten. Infringement is charged as to the secoud claim of this patent, which is: "(2) The inclined-sided recess, J, in a composition column, for supporting the concrete, r,as specified." The patent of January, 1878, shows the cruciform iron column with projecting wings, upon the ends of which wings is cast a projection or flange, So that the gores are held in place in the column by means of such flange; and provision is also made for filling the interstices between the gores and the web or flange with concrete or other non-conducting substances. This patent also shows the beveled recess of the 1877 patent filled with concrete, so as to protect the ends of the webs, and infringement is charged as to the first claim of this patent, which is: "(1) In a fire-proof column constructed as described, the protecting gores,B, provided with the groove, b, as and for the purpose set forth." The defenses interposed are: 'Want of novelty, and non-infringement. I may as well say briefly at the outset that I think the defense of noninfringement of the 1877 and 1878 patent is well taken. The defendants' device shows no dovetailed recess between the gores and the end of the flange or web of the column, and h('nce does not, in my estimation, ,infringe either the second claim of the 1877 patent, or the first claim of .the 1878 patent, as the defendants' device shows neither the inclinedsided recess, J. called for by the 1877 patent, nor the grooved gores, B, shown in the 1878 patent. Defendants rely on the issue of want of novupon the English patent granted to William Stratford Hogg, April 'I, 1872, for "improvements in renderingcolun1l1s, girders, doors, shutters, and other parts of buildings fire-proof;" the invention being stated to cOllsist"in casing and including such parts in fire-bricks,or other forms of clay or analogous fire-proof materials, moulded or formed to suit the particular objects to be inclosed." And in his specifications and draWings Hogg shows iron columns around which he places a casing of fire-bricks, the interstices between which fire-bricks are filled with plastic fire-clay or analogous material, so as to effectually exclude the heat from the iron. The proof shows that while the complainant's patents specifically describe gores of wood to be fitted in between the flanges or web of the iron column for the purpose of fire-proofing, the patent also states that other material may be used, and that, as a .matter of fact, the fireproofing done by the complainants under their patent is by filling the Itogles between the webs of the columns with fire-brick moulded oftha proper shape to fill the angles; and the interstices between such fire-brick with plastic clay or other cementing material. The defendants construct a fire-prl.of column consisting of·a hollow iron shaft, embody..