PIPE OOVERING 00.
tails of the mechanism described. Though th\1s limJ:ted, however, infringement of jt is none the less plain. Both articles (compla:inant's and defendant's) are watchman's time detectors of the same shape and size, contahiihg olock-work, paper dial,apparatusfor pricking and, combined therewith, mechanism for detecting- and recording any illicit opening. oithe case in which the whole apparatus is contained. In both ;articles the fact of opening is recorded by the prick oia needle on the paper dial. In both the needle is mounted at the free end of a spring, lying parallel with the dial, at a short distance from it; the needle being perpendicular to the paper dial on which it is to make its record. In both articles' there is arranged in the hinged· cover a projection with notched oream head. When the C()"'er is opened or closed, t4is notcll or cam, by movement across the free end of the spring, causes the needle to move triwards, the paper far enough to punch a hole inU. After the cam or,noteh 488 passed beyond the free end of the spring, the latter, the needle, resumes its normal position. The similarity . these tw6 structures approaches cl08elyto Sibsolute identity. time When limited to the tombination with the particular mecbanismabQve described, the evidence doe", npt 4isclose a,r'any anticipation, of cOID;plainant's-' apparatus. T40usands, of ticles have, been 'sold; ;both sides insi8ttho.t the,pllblic acceptS .them; and there seerns:tobequite as·much .in devising, was .held suffieientto;sustain the pateBts in. Palmer v 34 ;Fed. 337; Baldwin Y. ClmwayOo." 35 Fed. ,Rep. 519; Gas-Light :00., 39 Fed.fRep. 27'3. The evidenge of priorpq4lic \lse.by Abrahani ,Newman ofwatohman's clocks withi!!afetylocks, anticipating complainant's invention, ,is unsatisfactory anqunconvincing. " Decree for complainant. '
, . ;"
18, 1800.). _
·,,1 Thefu'st cIMni'of lettle1'8 pateht No. 276,044; i¥l1ed tQ,Petel::Bolt;f9rOajlS for
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INVENTION-CASING FOR STEAK-PIPE.
i·"erhig any Cap for the end of a pipe cQsing;it !adInitte.d'thatthe lon. gitlidihal diVision'of aectidtla'l' casings' for pipes was old.' ." , ,The device, cOnslsting,ot a cap made parts, each consisting of· a lIemiadapted to fit over the,pipe-clothing, 'adaPted' to l1t over the ,piI>(l, and a bevel4i\11 (semi-annulaI'> connecting pifl<le, is antiCipated-DO novelty' being e.laimed for'· the pate.n.t to '·'Barl:is, '11;SOO,Novembel' 26, 1867, whiCh shows a protective jacket, with one drical pipe, the non-conducting ;material'811d a conical copnellting portlop,and .of to Riker 159,452, 'February 2, 1875,showlhS' alpet81liceapfor embracIng pipe-coverings. .'
< ; '.!>:';
';In .. terreiltnuiitheirifdngement"Of'patenfNo. 216';044. . ,'""", " ; ' ,
Jf:lQme Carty ,for complainant. ' Henryr 0. Conrad and Arthur 8. Br()'l.(l'M, for defendant.
W AlJEs,J. This suit is brought for the infringement ofletters patent No. 276,044, dated April 17, 1883, issued to Peter Holt for "a new and useful improvement in caps for steam-pipe clothing.," and by him assigned to the complainant; The first claim of the patent, and which is the only one'in\Tolved in 'this controversy, reads as follows: "The comof'a pipe and 'pipe-clothing with a cap, H, made in two parts, Jfor embl'Mingboth clothing and pipe, substantially as set forth." Infririgementis alleged in reference to this claim and to no other. The complainant contends that this claim broadly the idea and device of ane,v combination in,the state of the art for preventing the disintegration of the ends of the notl,jconducting 'Clothing with which steam or ,hot-air pipes ate oftencbvered. The defense is anticipation and 11on'infringement. ' , Various methods andcon:trivances had been in use, long before the date of Holt's patent, for Mvering steam and other pipes, in order to prevent the ,radiation of heatlfrom steam-pipes, and to prevent freezing in water..:pipes. The ordinaty method was to surround the pipe with a cov:ering material, such as hair, felt, or as'best6s, secured to the pipe by means of an exterior canvas or metallic 'covering. In adj!Jsting thisc(wering at the joints of a pipe, or where it ,'was desirable to hllve aceessthereto, -or at any points in the pipe where branches were let off, it 'becitme necessary.. that a portion ofthe covering 'should be removed so that the pipe col11dbe laid bare. Such exposed '. ends or portidns '6f covering had ·to be protected to. the ends from disintegrating and falling out. The usual means employed we're to tie down the exterior canvas over the end of the covering, and bind it down to the pipe by twine or wire. Numerous devices and expedients have been invented for the purpose of effectually covering such pipes, and m/luypatents ,were ;producedin by the defendant to show what was old in this line at the date of the application for the Holt patent. The specification in the Holt patent describes his device and its object as follows: F"·'My in"ention. however, 18 not restricted to any kind of clothing. for aU :,pl,odatn pipe-wrappings are ltpt to become 4isintegrated at the points where for pipe wherever it l,s , to make attachments thereto., In order to prevent this. I usp an annular cap. D.made in two exactly similarparts, as best observed in the prospective view. 3. each part ,consisting of a piece. d, adapted toflt on the t,outside of,the clothipg, a,smaller semi-annular to fit ,to,the pipe. andtbebeveled connectmg the whole pr,eferably ieomposedof sheet or cast metal, and. proyided with lugs receiving bolts by ',Which the together, ,so ,as to inclose the clothing of the . pipe at and near the, end of tbe, same; beveled 'piecl! of one or bot,h parts of the cap is of 8uch a length that the beveled piece of one will exp?sure o! the end of the cap. 18 not liable to be disinclothmg. Wh1Ch. be1ng thulil cQnt\ained witbiti . ," , " , tegrated.'"
BERRYMAN fl. AINSWORTH BOILER & PIPE COVERING CO.
The defendant's device, and for which letters patent No. 340,073, dated April 20, 1886, were secured, consists of a casing for pipes, and is composed of two cylindrical sections of sheet-metal, each section being made of two half cylinders, which are placed around the pipe to be inclosed, with their edges meeting. Adjacent sections overlap each other, as in the case of ordinary stove-pipe sections. The longitudinal edges of the halves of each section are bent outwardly,and locked together by strips of sheet-metalwbich have their edges?ent inward. When the casing has thus been put around the pipe, the space between them is filled with a .suitable non-conducting packiIJg,such as asbestos or mineral wool., In Order to permit aCGess to the joints ofa pipe without removing the casing, they.are left exposed., and the casing is reduced at these points by a reduced secti,onwhichJsconical in shape, being, at its smaller end, of the diameter of the pipe, and expanding. at its larger end to the dimensions of the rest ,of the casing. T4is reduced section is composed of two partS, which are looked· together in the same manner ,as those of the cy'lindrical sections. No novelty is claimed for the manner of constructing or adjusting these outer casings, except at those points where it may qe necessary to separate the joints of a pipe, or to lower it without remoV'ing thecasirigordisturbing the ends orthe clothing. It is admitted, also,. that-the longitudinal division of the sectional casings and of tue caps is not of modern invention. The only question, then,is, does the Holt cap come within the definition of a"liewand usefulimprovement," in view of the prior state of the art? The fu$t claim, as broadly made and insisted on by the complain- . ·ant, in the nat·ure of a cap for covering the end of patent is made to include a cap a pipe casing·.' In other words, the which would fit over the end of a casing like the circular cover or top of a pill-bpx, hole in the center for the pipe to pass through. Substitute metalfor paper, and the cap and the cover are essentially the same. Such a construction ofth e claim goes very far, aIJd practically defeats itself, as not being within the meaning of a "new and useful improvement." But, apart from this, it is very clear, from an examination of the defendant's exhibits, that the device of Holt, or ita equivalent, had been in use before he' his application. , The Harris patent, No. 71,300, dated November 26 1867, for II fire-proof packing for smoke and hot-air :Ii ues," (defendant's No. 10,) shows a protecting jacket which has onecylindrical portion embracing the pipe, and another cylindrical portion embracing the non-conducting material, and a conical uniting portion, thus constituting a cap protecting the end of the covering. Theonly distinction between this jacket, in the Harris patent, and the Holt cap, ia that the latter is composed of two parts having longitudinal joints, and the former is made in one, piece. As already stated, no novelty is claimed for makihg the .cap in two pieces. 1'he Riker patent No. 159,452, dated February 2, 1875, for "improvement in non-conductiJ;lgcov,erings,",(defendllnt's Exhibit. No. 14,) is .lI:ccompanied by a model which shows a me.talliccap for protecting pipe-coverings which pipe and the pipe-covering in the sam«f Sense that·thed&v.40F.no.15-o6
.lfeJ;lQaJ;lt'!'! cap There; no originality in the .uoltcap,and the complainant's hillm,nat be dismissed. Decreed ac" (lOrdingly.
p. Michiu!MJ-. 'January 6,1$00.)
!l1he first claim ofpateutllUInbered 2011\14,6, to De Witt C. Reed. for an improve;ment in harrows, covers the combination of a harrow frame anll harrow tooth 86, cunld therein, SO as to be IbngltUdinally adjusted, and a fastening clip, constructed , w.lt.h,twQ ,biting :edges,bearing ,against tooth, th,e object of which:is to bold it JX\ore, roridly in than would be l'0ssible if the pressure were uniformlyu, ' thewholeWldtb cUp.' : " ' , " ,the patentee'Boriginal <!latml tne secOnd $llaim iSreBtricted toth& eombination With,. ,:ha'i'MW provided Witn a curvecl aeat, of a ourved tooth, anll suob a clip ': ,: ,dealrrjbed In the first
,,', '" In y1ew 9f the state, pfthe al't, anel of, thQ limitations put by;t11e l'atent-ofiloo upon
, ' :'
. " " "
The use ofa ourv:edtootb resting upon a curved seat had previously existed m.. the,appUqatiqll of to a ha.rrQ:Wi,a not,invention. , :
the Reed'Patent, olip was fiat, and the seat was not curved, y!lt it was he14 that,giv!ng the patentee ,; . full ofmlll/hllol1i,Cll101 eSluivalentB, the. tnree straight ,lines , 'tlSed'by tne defendants f,o 'fOrm the B1'O 'of II: Cirele were the equIvalent of the curved " ·J Hne:.', III order, that, the workiug end of tib..& be.,rrow to,oth be:raill64 or dep!"6S!!ed,,' it r d.sr thlj.ttJ;1e end oe \;UrY'e<1" an4itJs desirable, tbatit should rest, )lJlOD biore or lesB" c\itfed; but whemllil"th18 .seat be a literal curve, or a i series of ;atraight lines,: the, e1leot of w.hiQ\l is iii O):\l've, ill of ,no iI/J.p,ozrtanoo!' He,ld, i obtalDell full benellt oj, the ourved clip 'by the peculiar confor. . ' ibatlon of the seat 'tWo shOUlders; wbfuhperforinild :the,same funotion .as tbe i ObJtibg edges of the'o11p. 'J ',;:,' " " '" ,:' ;' 'J:
pBtElntls otthecllp; and It makes biting edges 'are' uBedaS8 seat. wIth a straight clip ..on the 0p,Po\lite. -surface,and .betwelln them, Or whetl1el' 8 curved seat Is · " l1s!ldoonforming to the shape of tbe tooth, Bnd the biting edge clip on the opposite " ;:. 'Bid&.' 'Held; theliecond olaim' was infringed by ,the defendants. ',. '(81Illaha byth.eCom1.).
", ;, no vahiable
so to ,p.ortjon of
seatl.Bec.W'ing it thereto by ac}ip,pr ;its'Elquivalent. in non-infringement! ' The
to ;th e,. cour.t)1. . .
to,qth acljacerittotbe frarpe
,., ,'Howq,r.d Ifc.!wpa ,l,lUd
: ,' , , .' : "." ,: '.
, ' , ,.' ' ,-
, I , . , : ,":., ,,' . ,
. , ..
,: ' '
' .' " ' , '