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..
WIGHT ]<'IRE-PROOltING CO.
CHICAGO FIRE-PROOF CO.
ing substantially the form of what is known as the "Old Phrenix Column," with webs extending outwardly, so as to form angles between the ends of the webs and the sides of the column, and these angleR between the webs of the defendants' column, like the complainant's, are filled in,with fire-brick, and the interstices between the bricks, between the bricks and the iron, are filled with plastic fire-clay or other plastic material. Defendants also show their gores extending beyond the ends of the webs of the column, so as to form a small space between the gOres, which space is filled up, like any other interstice or space between the bricks, with fire-clay. Hogg did not show a column with webs or flanges, but shows in his drawings a round column. He, however, states specifically that his device is applicable to columns or gir.4er:e of any shape, and that the or material may be moulded in such shape as to ada}}t it to the iron columns or girders ,to be protected; and if will be remembered that in complainant's 187 4 it is stated that the columns to be protected need not be webbed or cruciform in shape. He says: "These fire-proof casings have a space. between them and the columns, which, ifJree escape is provided,'may contain air, or it may be preferably filled with some, material being a non-conductor of heat." Again he says: "I lute the joints with some cement or material, and stop any holes that may be necessary for fixing them." With these directions in the pate1ltiar adap,til)g the shape of the fire-bricks ,to the shape of the column, thfJre cap. be no dpqbt that Hogg would have been entitled under Ms patent, if he wished to fire-proof a web or flanged column, to fill in the space between the webs with fire-brick so as to make a gore; and h!3w0uld also have been entitled to cover the ends of the web, either by projecting his brick over the ends, or by filling in the space between the extended sides of the brick gores and the web with fire-cl!lY or fire-proof cement. 1nother words, Hogg having instructed the world that an iron could be made approximately fire-proof by surrounding it with 'fire-Clay so as to protect it from heat, and in the use of fire-brick with luting ,or filling the joints between the fire-bricks so as to exclude or hinder the access of the heat to the iron, there was no field for invention left for Drake and Wight on which they could claim a patent upon the' idea of filling in the space between their wooden gores and the ends of the web :with fire-clay, cement, or other fire-proof material, to protect the en<il! of the web from heat; and hepce it seems to me that all there in complainant's patent o£1874 is fully antici pated by this Hogg patent. bill is, therefore, dismissed for want of equity.
CITY· OF LAKlj)V'IEW.
(Oircuit Oourt. No
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ANTICIPATION-ApPARATUS FOR FREEUlO WATER MAINS OF OBSTRUOTIONS.
Patent No. 312,158, granted February 10, 188li, to Samuel B. Peeney. which is for an arrangement of pipes and valves to free suction mains and strainers of sand, leaves, etc., and other obstructions. consisting of a plan for reversing the current of water in the suction mains without stopping the pumping machinery, by means of a series of by-pass pipes and valves, is not anticipated by a method of flushing the mains and reversing the current by gravitation, simply allowing the water to !low back to the source of supply. To defeat a patent by two years' prior use of the invention it is not sufficient thatthe plan had been formed by the inventor, and a model made for that period, where no'working apparatus was actually made and used two years before the application for the patent was made.
In Equity. Bill to enjoin infringement of patents. O. Linthicwm, for complainants. H. H. AnderBOn, for defendant.
BLODGETT, J. This is a bill in equity seeking an injunction and accounting for the alleged infringement of patent No. 312,158, granted February 10, 1885, to Samuel B.Peeney, assignor of one-half to Jones Patrick, for an "improvement in mains for water distribution." The invention is described in the specifications as relating to"Improved arrangement of pipes and valves to be used in freeing sllction mains and strainers of obstructions, such as sand, silt, and gravel in the said sQction mains. and leaves, weeds, and other like suspended matter, and ground or.anchor ice on the said strainers. Heretofore there has been no adequate ·apparatus for flushing the suction malUS and strainers located in the bed of a lake or P9nd without stopping the pumps, and it therefore often becomes necessary to stop the water supply of towns and villages which draw their supply from lakes and ponds. when it is pumped directly into the supply mains, and where occasional high winds in winter cause a stoppage. or greatly diminish Iheregular supply, by reason of a collection of ground or anchor ice ,upon the strainer, and at other seasons of the year by reason of the collection ofleaves, weeds, and other like obstructions upon said strainers. The object of my invention is to prOVide means of reversing the,current of water in the suction mains for the purpose of forcing out the obstructions without stopping the pumping machinery, and Without materially interfering with the distribution of the water in the town or village." The inventor then proceeds to describe his device by showing a series (If what he calls by-pass pipes and valves, by means of which the force of the pump can be used to drive a column of water outwardly through the suction pipes, thereby expelling obstructions which may have gathered in the pipes, or upon the strainers. The patent contains but one claim, which is: "In a system of water distribution, the crib, pump. and suction and delivery pipes, combined, substantially as set forth, with an independent flushing pipe. connecting the suction and delivery pipes and valves located in said in-