BRUSH ELECTRICiCO. tl·. FORT WAYNE ELECTRIC LIGHT CO'
sticks of Cl\rbon, the or gallery, 0, should be perforated, to allow passage down through it of said carbon sticks. I prefer making the platiform or gallery, 0, of and of such shape as tbatglObules of molten copper from the covering Of the in dropping away;'sball not escape. to do damage. It will be particularly observed that in the form of dash-pot employed the cylinder is the' movable, and the piston or plunger the stationary, element. This construction impHes more than a mere reversal of the usual make and operation of the for, by making the cylinder the movable element, the generalconstruction of a lamp can'very often be materially simplifled, .as in the present infltance. This form of dash-pot is designed to be employed in con nection with' any of the moving parts of the mechanism of an electric lamp, where if; is desired to retard a downward movement."
'J.'he lamp covered by patent No. 203,411 is referred to only for· the purpbseof illustrating the operation of the invention. in suit, and the complainallt'sright to the relief prayed. for does not. depend upon the validity oUhat patent. . The lowe,; carbon of this lamp is held in a fixedp08ition, and its upper carbon is carried by a shding rod, which pasaesthrough a ring clamp just large enough to permit it to slide freely through when the clamp lies flat on the floor of ',he regulator case, but which. ::binds upon the rod when it is. lifted by one edge. The lifter which is upon the edge of tbJ'l,cJampis attached to a. soft iron core, which plays inside a wire helix, through which the currelltproducing the light circulates. The attracting strength of ,this coil is proportionate to the strength of the current flowing through it. When there is no our.. rent flowing through the lamp the coil has no attraction; and the CQre consequently rests at the lowest limit,and the ring. clamp lies Bat on its floor. In that situation the carbon rod slips freely through the clamp, and the upper carbon rests in contact with the lower. Upon the, .establishment of the (lurl'ellt througp. the lamp, it passes through the . ca.rbons with little resistance, because they are in actual contact. The cumint.is.therefore a strong. one, and energizes the coil strongly; and it, inturn, powerfully attracts the core, and pulls it downward. This ment being communicated to the lifter, it, in tum,iirst lifts the ring (}la¢P by One edge, which causes it to impinge closely upon the rod, ilnd' then lifts the rod and· carbon, and. sO separates the.carbon points. establishes the arc. But the arc introduces a resistance to the rent whier diminishes its strength; the resistance increasing as the grows longer. Hence, as the arc lengthens by theconsumption of the carbons,and the increase of the space between them, the current grows weaker; .and the attracting power of the coil diminishes until it lets the core move downward sufficiently to release the grl1sp of the clamp on .so th.at it slips downward. As the upper carbon approaches the lower,. and so shortens the arc and diminishes its resistance, the current's strength, increases; the coil again pulls the core upward,and so tightene the clamp 'l1pon the rod, and thus' holds the upper carbon suspended at itsoomialdistance from thl!llower. process gOes, on until the carbons .lLl'e, .. .. , ... '. . of the lampMl suit that when " Ifwilf '9Pservedfr.Qt;'1 the p!tssed.:Qlrough it the,Qurrent divides aUhelamp,and
passes through both pairsnfcarbons, and instantlyenergbing'thesolenoids, draws upwardly the cores, and, through the bar, E2, link, EI, lever,E', and lifter, D, the pairs of carbons, A. The separation of this pair ofcarbons does .not' pperate to 'brenk the circuit and form,an arc bebut simply ,diverts the entire current through the remaining and unseparatedpairof carbons, A. The lifter, D, continuing to rise, next separates the carbons, A. thereby interrupting the circuit, and establishirig the arc be,tween the last-separated pair of carbons, A. After the arc. has been established between one pair the carbons of the remaininK pair are held separated by the ring clamp; their initIal separation being such that. the idle pair will be retained in their separated relationwhile the regulator automatically moves and adjusts the burning pair; to separate or approximate them, as the conditions may require to regulate the length of the arc, and also to automatically feed them to maintainthe arc. When the burning pair of carbons has been consumed the effective pull ofth'4:lsolenoidsis diminished to such an extent that the carbons of the idle pair are brought into contact,which causes the entil:eourrent to be 'instantly diverted through them; the effect of which is to strengthen the solenoids. and' I!eparnte the carbons again,and autOlIultically establish the arc between them; The separation of the two pairs of carbons, so that the arc is established betweenolle pair and maintained between the carbons of that pair until they have been consumed, and then automatically established between the carbons of the other pair snd, maintainedbetweell them until-they have been consumed, is a dissiniultaneous and successivearc.form'ing separation; and it is this feature whiahdistinguishes the lamp in suit from all prior lamps. : ':Fhe six claims of the patent whichit is alleged are infririged read: :"(1)' than electficianip. two or more pairs or sets of carbons. in combination withmechanislIi constructed to separate said pairs dissimultaneously or :succeSsively, substantially as and for the purpose specified. (2) In an electric lamp·.twoor .more pairs or sets of carbons, in combination with mechanism to Iileparate said pair:s.dIS&imultaneously or successively. and establish the; between the members of but one pair, to-wit, the pair last separated. while tbe members of the remainingpa,ir or pairs are maintaIned ina separated relation. SUbstantially as Shown. (3) In an electric lamp haVing more than·one pair or set of carbons, the combination; with said carbon sets or pairs·, ;of mechanism cOllstructed to impart to them independent and dissjlIiultaneousseparating and feeding movements, Whereby the electric light will beestablished between the members of but one of said pairs or sets at II time. w,hile the melDqers of the remaining pail' or pairs are rnaintained in a separate relation" substantially as shown. (4) In a single electric lamp, tWo or morEl pairs or sets of carbons. all placed in circuit, so that when their membel'S are in c'ontact the current may pass freely though all said pairs alike, in combination with mechanism constructed to separate said pairs dissimultaneouslyorsuccessi vely. su;bstantially as and for the purpose shown. (5) In an wherein more than one set or pair of carbons are employed. thelifter,D, or,its eqUivalent, moved by any suitable means, and constructed to act u'pon said carbons or carbon holders dissimultaneously or successively. :substantially as and for the purpose shown. (6) In an electric lamp wherein more than one pair or set of carbons are employtld. a clamp. Co or its equivalent. for each said pair or set, said clamp, C, sdaptedto grasp and move said
BRUSH ELE<'lTRIOCO·. 17. FORT WAYNE ·ELECTRIC LIGHT CO.
carbons or carbon holders dissimultaneously or successively, substantially. and purpose shown." · It is admitted by the' defendants' counsel that the patent in suit describes a new and useful mechanism for which Brush was entitled to 8 patent;_ but it is urged that the first, second, third, and fourth claims are for functions or results without regard to mechanislU, and are void. The claims are not open to this objection. 'l'he specification describes mechanism whereby a re!iult lUay be accomplished, and the for mere functions; nor, fairly construed, can it be said claims. are. that they cover other than 'equivalent means employed to perform the same functions. The first claim, construed in connection with ,the means descdbed in the specification, is for an electJ;,ic arc lamp in wh.ich two or more pairs of carbons are used; the adjustable carbons of each pair being regulated by one and the samemechanisID, and in which there is a dissimultaneous or successive separation of the pairs, so effected as to secure the continuous burning of one pair prior to the establishment of the arc between the other pair. Thus construed, the il1ventionclaimed is limited .to the particular means described in the specification, and their substantial equivalents. The second, third, and fou:rth claims also refer to the particular mechanisms described in the specifi.cation for the accomplishment of results covered by those claims. They are for cOJUbinations,ohpecific mechanisms, and their substantial irrespective of means for their equivalents, and not. for plishment... It is true thatin the specification Brush deolared: "I do not in any degree limit myself to any specifio method or mechanisql for lifting, mOVing, or separating the carbOI;lpoints, or their holders. so long as tbe partiCUlar functions and results hereinafter to be specified shall be accomplished.," He did not say, however, that he claimed all mechanisms, ive of their. construction and JUodes of operation. By this language .he notified the public that he did not restrict himself to the ular lamp described in the patent, but that his invention, embraced that and all other lamps operated in substantially the same way, byequivalent mechanism. It is that the fifth claim covers the lifter simply, and that. the sixth claim coverll nothing but the clamps, and, being ouly for detached parts of the lamp, incapable of separately performing the. tioD ascribed to them, these claims are void. The fifth claim is for a combination of which the lifter, D, is an element, and, thus construed, the claim is for a novel and useful invention. The sixth claim is not for the two clamps aside from other connected mechanism. It is for the two clamps in combination with the mechanism described in the patent for actuating the clamps, and cliusing them to grasp and move the carbons dissimultaneously, substantially as and for the purpose described in the specification. Patent No. 147,827, issued to Matthias Day, Jr., February 24, 1874, is relied on as an anticipation of the first, second, and fourth claims of the patent in suit. This defense is based upon a. construction ohhese v.40F.no.14-53 . . .
that gives no to which is not authorized. . The paterit'in suit deconstruction, we, have scribe!:l'mechanism whieh·designedlyand positively effects a dissimul. taneousseparation Mthe carbons, andPl'of. Barker, the defendants' expert, that the Day lamp was not'so constructed, and did not so .. It is true,t,hat the Day pate tit describes a lamp which contains tvvo or more pairs of carbons, but ,not such a double carbon lamp as Brush invented. In the Day lamp, -each Clarbon isapUt or divided vertiically fora slight distance from the outer end, but so rigidly connected at the clamp extremityM' to actsol61y as a pair of separate carbons, and not as "two or more"independent pairs or setEl'of carbons." Owing to shifting of the arc from one pair of carbons to , the cohstant and the othedn this lamp, it produced an irregular and unsatisfactory light. It was unlike the Br\'lsh lamp, both in construction and mode of operation. , The answer also denies'infringement; but that· defense, like the last one, is based on thetht\orythat the claims are not at all limited by their concluding language. '<It is plain;cfromthe evidence, that the defendants" lamp was designedly constructed 'so as to insure the dissimultaneous separatien' of the' two '1'l1irs of carbons for the purpose of forming the arc betweeli one pair only of the carbons, and that both lamps operate in identicallY,',the sathe way, and for the'same purpose. The patent describes'a'dng clamp, and ;the defendanttluse a hinged· clamp; but there is not the slightest functionaldifferehoe between them. Both operate by grasping ,and holding, with V'aryirigpressure, the smooth rod which 'tpe.carbons,thus' allowing the rod .to slide. 80 as to secure a continuOlis fe'ed by inappreciable degrees; while, tinder other conditions, the rod is allowed to slip suddenly, b)' gravity. Therlng clamp was· old,and Brll$h simplY' employed it, as suitable for his purpose, in combination With other ele Ol ents with wh.ich it co-acts; and the substitution in the mode of operation or of the hinged clamp; without any function,did'not change thecomljination. In the Brush lamp the clamps rest'on a flat floor, and the armsdf the lifter are of unequal length, so that when the lifter is raised one clamp is tilted in advance of the other; arid!,the carbons are separated'dissimultaneously. In the defendants'llimpthesame reSUlt is accomplished by supporting the clamps in differeritJ?lanes, andelnploying a;'li'fter with arms of the same length, so tha'tirithe operation of the litter it will tilt one clamp in advflQce of the other. Brush did not claim that there was invention iii the lifter ahd clarilps; disconnec:ted with other parts in the operation of the lamp; lind the defendants cannot escape infringement by showing that thet use a' lifter' 'and!' riot' identical in construction lifter and clamps described in the patent; It is admitted that, if the claims are construed as embracing the'mechanism described in the specification, use a lamp covered by,the patent in suit; and that ren·· the ders a furtner description of defenllants' lamp ., ': 'It, is "fin811tcontended thepaterit describes:particular ril<e6nariism by which' the functions stated in the claims 'Can be per-
BRUSH ELECTR.UI. qQ. ".
(ormed, the patentee expressly declared in his specification that he did not limit himself to this mecha,llisUli, or, its equivalent, but claimed that his invention comprehended all means capable of accomplishing the results stated, and.:that,'having thus claimed: ,more than',he was entitled to, the complainant cannot recover until he disclaims everything in the specification except the'sp'ecific me6banism:' 'An al!plicati6n, for letters patent is 8.l?companied by a specification giving 11 full description ofthe alleged invention; and this' is folIo,wed' 1>1 known,. and well understood'in the' courts, as well as in the' pateri'eoffice, as a "claim." What the patentee invents and, describes .in his specification'but fails to (lrp.brace iJ:ihis claim, .he abfl.udons to the, public, unless, by timely,application, he obtains a reissue for it; and if, in the descriptive part of his invention, he inadvertently, or otherwise, includes as part of his invtmtion thatwhichis old, btlt'does notelilim it, hiBt<!laim i8not thereby invalidated. Such part of the specification is surplusage. It isol1ly when the claim following the specification is too broad,' in the ,sense. of embracing something as new'which .is not new, that the patentee isrequired by section 4922 to disclaim. He is'not reqUited to disclaim anything in the specificat!on not covered by: his claim. The word"specification l' is i:tb'Vieusly used in the first clause of sootion' 4922 as synonymous with'''Clairn.'' I am Il.ware of no 'deCision holding that a.: pat.:. entee is reqlii:red;todisclaitnanything in the descriptive part of his inventionwhich'is not fairly embraced Within his claim. In Railroad Co; v. 104 U.'S. 118, the court said: i "'In view, therefore, ofthe statute, the practice of the patent-office, and the decisions of'this court, we think that the scope of letters patent should be totbe invention covered by the olaim, and that. though t"e claim may be illustrated, it cannot be enlarged, .by the langllage in other parta of the specilicatipn. We al'e therefore justified iq looking at the 'claim' with Which the of the. appellee's invention coucludeto determine what is covered by ,his patent." : It .is not. for the of·thIs suit, Brush was a pioneer, or,amere improver. It is sufficient that he described and illUS7 trated, in his patent, specific mechanism, or double.carbon lamp, adapted to burn its' carbons independently and successively; that he was the first to accomplish this result; and that the claims are for mechanism substantially as described in the' pateht, in combination with two or more pairs of carbons, or sets ofcarbons, for producing the result specified. We havaalreadystated that what ie claimed is not functions'ahd results, but rnechanismfor producingfunQtious and results. A decree will be entered in accorda.nce with the prayer ofthe bill.
, DDERALBEPOBTJm,voL 40.
(D£Btriet OO'Ut't, S. D. New York. November, 1889.)
In an action in ,.emagainst a chartered ship for negligent damage to cargo, the cb",rter:ers may, on the qiaimants' petition showing cause therefor, be made parties defendant, on the analogy of the case of The Hudson, 15 Fed. Rep. 162, and of rule 59 in admiralty. 2.
TO CAlllJO-LmEL IN !tEH-TmRD PARTIES-CHARTERERs-Fren-
It is tbe duty of courts of admiralty, under their inherent and statutory powers, to adapt their practice and proceedings to new emergencies, so as to secure, as far 88 ppSBible, the speedy, oomplete,. and C9nvenient administration of justice. .
11) Admiraltv. On mQtion that oparterersbe made co-defendants with the ship. · Nor.th, Ward & Wag8tajf, for libelant. Goodtrich, Deady & Goodrich, for claimants. R. D. Benedict, for charterers.
BROWN,'J. The Alert was a eharteredship, and, being-sued in rem for negligent damage to cargo', by .the breaking of her tackle while discharging, under the oharterers! her owners in their answer say that the taokle was furnished either by the shipper or, by the charterers, under a special agreement between them, and not bytheship,.aJ;ld they now move that the :charterers be made o()o.d...fendants. Unless this is done, there may be three independent suits on the same question'. Most of the considerations the case of The Hud8on, 15 Fed. Rep. 162,are applicable;9.nd I· think the'n1otion should be granted upon the analogy of case, of the rule' in. . In instances, wliere the language of that rule was nothterally apphcable, It has been applied by where thesame or similar reasons have existed for its application, and where no substantial harm could arise therefrom to the plaintiff. .The defEmdahts must, . course, give the necessary additional stipulations 'fo.r costs,both to the libelants,and to the new parties brought in.
ON REARGUMENT' ON EXCEPTIONS.
. (January 15, The charterers, having,been served 'with process, have appeared specially, 'and· upon exceptions moved to set aside the process issued against them as Subsequent reflection confirms my judgment of the propriety of the order heretofore granted. Its propriety does not depend upon the form of the action, whether it be in contract or in tort, but on the essential reasons for it, viz., the due administration of justice; to prevent circuity of action and a nlllltiplicity of suits upon the samequestionj to secure a thorough hearing upon full evidence as to the factsj to prevent diverse or contradictory decisions upon the same subject, 'Reported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.