J'IRMAN fl. NEW HAVEN CLOCK 00.
FmMAN et al.
NEW HAVEN CLOCK Co.
(ctrcutt Coun, D. ConnecUcut. December 5, 1890.)
Claim 5 of letters patent No. 192.644, granted July 8, 1877, to Leroy B. Firman for improvements in automatic signaling apparatus, is for "the combination, with a call writing wheel, of a signal writing wlleel, moved by the same power, when the latter is provided with a number of equal spaced teeth, which write the signal de' sired by making a cenain number of equal spaced Impulses." Two wheels acting in operated by I6parate acts of the user, and a single wheel, which made In succession the two impulses, had been previously known. ReW, that the claim must bll limited to the mechanism substantially as described therein, and was not infringed by an apparatus in which two wheels coacted to produce !Po sim· Uar ,reSUlt, one producing the impulses, and the other determining which of the impulses should be transmitted.
In Equity. George P. Barton and Wm. Edgar Simond8, for plaintiffs. Harry M.Turk and Arthur V. Briesen, for defendant.
SHIPMAN, J. This is a bill in equity to prevent the alleged infringe. ment of .fifth,claim of letters patent No. 192,644, dated July 3, 1877, granted to Leroy B. Firman for improvements in al;ltomatic sig, naling used in the system known the "district telegraph system," in which "each station is designated by a number, and the apparatus is constructed to write that number as a 'call,' and subsequently to write anyone oheveral signals, at the will of the operator." The appaia,tus was an improvement upon the device described in letters. patent No. 185,455 to G. S. Ladd and S. D. Field, which contained, one circuit breaking wheel, described by one of the experts for the plaintiff as follows:', set of teeth or notches upon its rim, extending partly "Having a around, so as to give a station number or call, the remaining portion of the rim being divided into teeth, placed at regular intervals apart, so that they will cause a series of equal spaced dots upon the paper of the register at the receiving station, amounting altogether to one more than the number of special signals provided tor."
A movable plate, with enough to cover two teeth,. is placed against' one side cf the wheel, and thus a dash is formed, instead of two dots, when these teeth pass the contact point. Any two adjacent teeth may thus be combined, and the special signal depends upon where the dash is formed. The operator determines the special signal by observing which two dots are united to form a dash. The patentee divided this single wheel into two wheels. Upon part of the rim of one wheel there were the unequally spaced notches, which designated the call, the remaining portion of the rim being without teeth, and connected with a segment of a cog.wheel, and Upon .part of the rim of the other wheel were equally spaced notches) which' designated the special signal. The second wheel isprought into action after the call, which has finished its work. It is connected with another segmllntof a cog-wheel, the teeth
of which are capable of being moved into position in which they will be engaged by the,teet4 of the segment on the first wheel. After the call has been given, the teeth of the segment of the call wheel are brought into position to engage the teeth of the segment of the signal wheel. This description of the Firman wheel is abbreviated from a longer description given bJMr. Quimby, oneM the defendant's experts. Two signaling wheels are described in letters patent to E. A. Calahan, No. 129,526, lind to T. A. Edison, No.146,812, each issued before the date of the Firman patent, for sending, when successively operated by successiveand distinct acte of the operator, different signals by preflcribed different systems of breaks of the circuit, but not for sending automatically these different signals. It does not appear that either of these inventions went into actual use. 'The improvement consisted in two wheels instead of one, which automatically and successively communicated to the central office the two sets of signals. It is thus described, in detail, in the first claim : "(I) The signal.mechanismoperated by suitable clock-work. provided with 8 writing wheel constructed to give the I'all or number of the !lLatiun, lind anotht'r adjustable w'leel. which stands still while the callis being written. and is engaged by'the meehan,sm aftereall has been sent. and is caused to turn through whatever space or number of teeth desired. by setting the pointer. substantially as specified." The fifth claim, and the one which is ,said to have been infringed, as follows:, ",(5) The,combil1atton.with 8 call writing wheel. of a signal writing wheel. moved by the same power. when the lattt'r igprovided with a numbt'r of equal spaced teeth. \\'hich writ!' the signal desired by making a certain number of '. equal spaced impulses. substantially as specified." : The defendant uses an apparatus which is described in letters patent No. 321,073, dated June 30, 1885, to Frank B. Wood. It produces a compound by the joint aption of two wheels. It has"l'wo: signnl wheels. which are geal'edto I'al'h other and to the clock-work. so that ,UlI'y both move simultaneously and in uni!lon during thl' time that botb parts of t1le compound signal a.-e being transmitted. While thus in motion they are acted upun by opposite ends of the same electrical contact spring." smaller wheel runs continuously, has a series of equally spaced notchqa, tends to transmit a recurring series of breaks at equal distnncesll}Jart. The lnrger wheel has certain portions of the periphery cut awny.· When both of these wheels nremovedsimultaneously in the S8pJ,e direction, the smaIl wheel sends a continuous series of signals, .Which are not needed are canceled and prevented from being sent. by tpe ,nction of the larger wheel, spaces of periphery, ,and. thus the final result is to give, first, the signal, and then the call. The reslllt is, substantially, that of the Firman,device. ·. Theplai ntifls(3lnim that the eqtiivalentofthe Firman sigoal wheel of the defendant, which ,trllnsmits a series of equally tlJat the, equiY:llent of .the call w4eeUs the.la1ge
FIR¥AN:V. !'iEW, .HAVENCLOCX: CO.
wheel of the defendant, whi.ch has its periphery so cut away as to determine is lient, :notwithstanding that the actual transmission of the signal is performed by the other wheel, and that thus the; device. contains the ca.ll wheeLand the signal wheel of the fifth claim. If a literal construction is to be given to tl;1j3 fifth claim, and ()f are a signal 'Writing with equally spaced teeth, whiohmakes equally spaced impulses, and a call writing wheel incombinatiot)., regardless of thi'! Which these two wheels operate to produce the result, the remaining element being power operating the two wheels in such manner as to transrpitithe ()]:Ie operl'ttion, then. infringes., ' In my opinion, construqtiqn cannot.qe given, but the Scope of pa.tentml,1li1t. be, "to 8uGb /1S ill. described in the patept., ,vi:z<., by the same power,.in :suceession one4;>f.whicb ,nrod:uoes a part ofthe !'\ign,al by itll sole ftnclthe othH of the other part by its action, . trU,e ,that tM iJlvention. was the first Qne hav_ ing two wheelswPich did the automatically, but this of ltnd permIt the lUventor to lUclude .wheels; whl(:h dIffer so widely from his apparatus as do double wheels of the Wopd patent. This seems manifest from the place invention occupil:ldin the history of the art. fwo wheels, acting in succession, but operated by act!lof had, been a singlew4eel, which futtd,e successiQtithe,two,a.cts :0):' pl'l'lceded Firman, whose ,was to the. wheel wheels, Qne having the notches,aIjd.to move theO} by the same ,l)0wer, sothl).ttwo slgnl;llll should be traosmlttedsuc,by one ;thisstepdid'Dotentitle hiI!! to include in liis patent two whecls W'hich c'oact with each other ap.dprqduce a compound signal, one wheel .the imml1sef:i.and the larger wheel determining which the impulses shall go through the line and be recorded. These wheels cannot, in view of the limited character of the Firman invention, be properly styled the equivalents of the call writing wheel and the signal writing wheel oithe patent,.although they produce the same result. The bill is dismissed.
FEDERAL REPORTER, vol. 44 ATLANTIC DREDGING CO.
BERGEN NECK Ry. Co.
October 22, 1890.)
(Otrcutt Oourt, 8. D. NfJW York.
W ATERS-OBSTRUCTION-IN.JUNCTION-JUJlISDICTION. The circuit court of the United States sitting in the southern district of New York will not grant an injunction against the erection of embankments or trestles on the. soil of New Jersey, though such structures may project into the waters of a navigable channel leading into the Bav of N"AW Yorlr
In Equity. Order to show cause why temporary injunction should not be made permanent. The Atlantic Dredging Company was a New York corporation, which had dredged a navigable channel from the waters of New York into the territory of New Jersey, at Bayonne, at the head of which channel, and within the limits of the city of Bayonne, was situated its repair yard. The Bergen Neck Railway Company in laying its tracks claimed the right to cross such channel by embankment or trestle. This court granted a temporary injunction restraining the obstruction of the channel by defendant, and required the latter to show cause why the injunction should not be made permanent. Robert D. Benedict, for complainant. Gilbert Collins, for defendant. LACOMBE, Circuit Judge. I am not satisfied that this court, sitting in the southern district of New York, has jurisdiction of this action, which is concerned with structures in process of erection on the soil of New Jersey, although such structures may project into the waters of a navigable channel coming up from the Bay of New York. People v. Railroad, 42 N. Y. 283; In re Devoe ManuJ'g Co., 108 U. S. 401, 2 Sup. Ct.Rep. 894. Let the temporary stay be vacated.