STEAM GAUOE' & .I,ANTERN CO,V. WILLIAMS.
These statements comprise the whole description of the friction plate or pressure contrivance. Succinctly stated, what the specification describes is this: The lining of the chamber in which the movemen't of the traverser takes place is adjusted inwardly by a set-screw, so as to impinge upon aud arrest the traverser in its rebound, or the chamber U! constructed in a contracted form so as to arrest and impede the movement of the traverser; or various other instrumentalities, to retard the rebound of the traverser, which are not mentioned, maybe employed.. The third claim of the patent is for a combination ofthe Mction pla.te or pressure contrivance, which consists of the lining or planking adjusted. bva set-screw, with the trnverser. The second claim must therefore be as one for some other pressure contrivance for controlling the rebound of the traverser. In view of its broad terms, it cannot be restricted to one in which the pressure contrivance consists of a chamber) of a permanently contracted form. It is c6n:tended for the complainant that any press of the rebounding traverser type, in which a friction plate: or pressure contrivance is applied to the traverser to retard its backward movement and prevent shock, falls within the terms and scope oftha claim, and is an infringement of it. 'l'helanguage of the claim is such as not only to justify, but to require, this scope to be given to it, and it must be construed as one for the application of friction or pressure to ' the traverser,' during its' backward movement, by any and every device i which is capable of more or less retarding such movement; and this.i is the construction placed upon theclairn, in considering the question' of infringement,by the complainant's expert witness. There is.no itation in the claim to any specific devices,· but the claim is intended 'W . and doesiriollIde any and all of the "various instrumentalities" by : "more or less friction" may be applied to the traverser. In other words, . the claim is one for the application of friction to retard the mOVenll:lnt of the traverser, unlimited to any particular form or character of mechanioalmeansforeffecting such application. Such a claim cannot be upheld. 'roo bill is dismissed. .
(Otrcuit Oourt, N. D. New York. June 26, 1800.)
The first claim of letters patent issued August 1, 1882, to J!;dward Wilhelm, for'DD '. improvelnent.in locOmotive head.lights consisting of a reflector, provided with'an . opening behind the burI).er, whereby light is emitted backwardly into the bead-light I ease for Uluminating signal plates, is not infringed by a device wherein the ligbt pasileS into.tbe. head-l1gJ:1t case through an enlargement oftbe burner hole, .' s.'!Qb claimmust,be restriQted to head-lights in which is a hole in tbe ' . dIstinct fromtbe burner. cbimney holes, in order to give it novelty. ', "
directed towards the signal plates,» is void for want of patentable invention.
E.S. J-enmy, for complainant. Edmund Wetmore, for defendant.
W AT,LACE, J. The two claims of the patent in suit (granted to Edward Wilhelm, August 1, 1882, for "locomotive head-lights") alleged to be infringed by the manufactured by the defendant are as follows: In a head-light, a reflector provided with an opening arranged behind the burner. whereby ligbt is emitted backwardly into the head-light case for iIlllminating signal plates or lenses applied to said case, suostantiillly as set tell'th. (2) The coinbinatil'n, with a head-light case. provided with signal platesror lenses, of a reflector constructed with an opening arranged behind the burner, and an auxiliary redector. whereby the light emitted backwardly such opening isdirected towards the signal plates or lenses. substan8et forth." of the patent is a.n improvement ill. that class of headlights are provided with signal plates or lenses in the sides of the helj,d.}ight casejand the object of the improvement is to illuminate the signaL plates ,in a simple and efflGient manner, so that the signal can readily, be observed a.t night by train Qispatchers or others whose duty it is to note the passingQf trains. Locomotive head-lights in their ordinary form, Qons\st Qf a metal case with a glass front, inclosing a parabolic raflect()lj wbwh carries a lamp. The lampis located so that when lighted the, is' in the focus Qf, the parabola, in order that the rays of .light nlay:betbrown forward upon and somewhat along the sides of the track. Tha;lll(D,'\pis provided with a chimney, and the reflector is provided with two ,ohe above the other, for securing the lamp. The body and of; the lamp in the lower hole, a'ld when the chimney is bur.neritextends through the upper hole, and the lamp is.th,l;Isfirmly,securedat both ends.- .Ea(lh of these holes opens .into the the,refle<ltor,so that atthe upper hole the chimney extends lseXposed within the case backof the reflector, and at the lower hole the body of the lamp extends into and ,is exposed within the case at the back of the reflector. Before the date of the Wilhelm patent such head-lights, provided with signal plates or lenses in the sides of the case, and with meallS for illuminating the signal plates, were old. Such a head-light is described in the patent to Mills, Bell, and Carey, granted in 1876, in the signal plates are illuminated fromth,e interior of the case by means of side openings which consist of a hole in the reflector at each, side of the lamp opposite the signal plates. Another such headlight is described in the patent to Forsyth granted in 1878,in which the Bliltes are placed in openings in the case, one at each located aboQt,oua level with the aperture in the reflector which holds the chimney; the, object being to litilize the light which escapes through the chimneY, apel'tluefor illuminating the signal plates; and in order to do this nioreetfOOtually the inside: of the case the back of the reflector are ' . painted white. The precise improvement made by Wilhelm appears from the following of his specincation:
STEAM GAUGE & J,ANTERN CO. V. WIJ,LJAMB.
"Heretofore these signal plates have been illuminated in various ways, with more or less success, either by direct light thrown upon the signal plate through openings in the reflector on both sides of the lamp, or by the light whi':h is emitted through the chimney opening of the reflector, and dJfruses itself in the upper portion of the head-light case, and also by light reflected backwardly from the front end of the head-light case. My invention consists in constructing the reflector with an opening at or Ilear its apex behind the lamp, whereby light is emitted into the head-light casp, where it diffuses itself, and may be utilized for. illuminating the signal plateR or lenses applied to the head-light case; also in providing such case and reflector with an auxiliary reflector, which deflects the light emitted lJackwardly through the openings in the main reflector, and directs such light upon the signals which are desired to be illuminated." The specification describes an opening or aperture formed in the rear portion of the reflector about in a line with and behind the burner of: the lamp; and a reflector arranged at the back of the case behind the main reflector, which may be.composed of two plane reflectors arranged; at .an angle to each other, or may be made curved, convex, or conical, or of any other suitable form, to deflect a sufficient quantity of light upon the signal plate. As shown by the drawings, the opening is a distinct aperture from the burner hole, and is located above the hole. The,spec:ification states that the illumination of the signal plates may be attained,. but· in a less satisfactory manner, without the auxiliary reflector, by painting the interior of. the head-light case white. Obviously, the patentee contemplated an improvement of the head-light of the Forsyth patent. This is apparent from the enumeration of the advantages intrlr duced into such a head-light by. making an opening in the reflector behind the burner, which are set forth in the 8pecification as follows: "The light emitted through this opening is more intense than that which is emitted. by the chimney opening, and not liable to be obscured when the upIWr oLthe chimnej' becomes covered with smoke or soot, which happens occasionally, and materially interferes with the illumination of the signal plate." The improvement, which consists in forming an opening in the reflector of the Forsyth head-light, is the subjectof the first claim of the patent.· In other words, the first claim is for a head-light essentially like that of the Forsyth patent, improved by making .an aperture in the reflector hind the burner and between the burner hole and the chimney hole, for emitting light into the case. The second claim is for the head-light of the first claim, with an auxiliary reflector behind the main reflector to catch and deflect the light emitted from the aperture. The head-lights which are manufactured by the defendant do not contain any opening ()r aperture in the rear portion of the reflector which is distinct from the holes in which the chimney and the body of the lamp rest. Prior to 1880 the defendant designed a reflector differing in form from those previously in use, making it deeper, and shapingit so that the part in rear of the burner was elqngated, in which the hole for the body of the lamp was considerably enlarged rearwardly. The object of this change was to faciliiarte access to the lamp for the purpose of triI1lming and lighting it without removing it from the reflector. The head-light,hllV-
ingsuah ,a :reflector and aperture, is desoribed in a. patent granted to the defendant December 28, 1880; and in catalogues to the trade issued hy him iri':f871) there are wood-cuts Of this head-light which show the lower to extend towards 'the apex until it reaches a point lower pInt of the burner. It seems'entirely plain that thj;l alleged inMnging head-light is tlw precise structure described in the defendant's patent of 1880 and in his catalogue. If; as is now contended for the complainant, the burner hole of the defendant's head-light is the opening Ol'ltperture of the Wilhelm patent, to eSCRl?e the conclusion that the first claim of the patent is'invalid for want cif novelty. Certainly there could not be invention in 1882 in putting the burner hole of the defendant's patent of 1880 into the head-light of the Forsyth patent in 1878. When the parts of the'two old head-lights are assembled' together, they do precisely the same wbrk in their new juxtaposition which they clid previously. The burner hole emits light into the case in the same way it did in the defendant1ifh,ead-light, and the other parts'se\"erally do their work in the same' lVaythey did in tbe Forsyth head-light. It might have involved invention if such a burner hole, instead of being employed in the raflectotbf.'a locomotiVebead.light, bad been employed in something else to app'l'6priate it for illuminating the signal plates, and adapting it to the Jacwoooasionj but it is not invention merely to transfer one part of a '<iOrnposite device to another composite device of the same generill type, wben the result is merely to aggregate tbe effects of each. Unless tbe fi1'Stclaim is limited toone for a head-light in which there is an aperture'distinct from the burner hole or: chimney hole in the reflector, it cannot be upheld. Upon this construction the defendant does not infringe. Theseeond claim is destitute of novelty·. It cannot be invention to add toa bead-lightanau:idliary reflector, which, as ,the specification states,"maybeofany suitable fohl1,"to intensi(y and direct the light which escapes into the QaSEkTheutility of such a device is suggested by the main;.reflector itaeUjand tbespecification implies that ll-UY per-. souskiUe4. in the art cau,withQut instruction from the patent, select the requwte form to do tqe required work. The bill is dismissed.
SACKETT V. SMITH.
'(dcrmtft Court, B. D. New
May 18, 1890;)
LPi'lli1mlwio. 11rllmTIONS-CpMBINA.TIONS-WANT OJ' NOVELTY-FOUNTAIN-PENS.
'. No. .. 18!!6.to. George B. Sackett, tor an improve.: mant tn, fountain-pens. copI!tlltll ot a reservoir, or tubular' h91der·.constructed with' longitudin8I i gl'ooves in We innerwsllsof itsll>wer end; in.combinstion witb a pen,; the itito the. groove.s. s.p'.ss to hoJ4 .. pen in place. Held,. tbat.tbe use of fot' holding the pen lIfplaoe, liaviDg been long known, was,
Dot pateDtable.. :.:. · ' . '. ' : , :, . ,,