FllIDli:RAL REPORTER,' vol.
doubt. The question arising upon the expiration of the Danish patent hils not been argued. The casual examination which the <lourt, in the absence of explanation, has been able to give to this patent leads to the conclusion that it is hot for the same invention 8S the Swan reissue. ' There should be a decree for the complainant.
(Circuit Court, iE. D. Pennsylvania.
January 00, 1892.)
PA.TENTS FOB INVENTIONS-NOVELTY-PRIOR STATE OF THE ART.
,The firrrt two claims of letters patent 345,186, for apparatus for treating unbaked bretzelsicontaining as elements the generator, the perforated pipe leading from near, the bottom of the generatori a perforated ,spray-pipe, and a casing located over'the carrie!:, all of which eements, each operating in the same way and for'analogous pUrJloses, being shown in prior patents, and no new or better being obtained, do not cover patentable novelt,Y. of letters patent No. 845,186. which contained\he phrase,,"spraying and devices," /lnd the fact that the specification described the machine as having a spraying pipe and a perforated drum, by which inUt was sprinkled over the dough being treated. will cause to be included in this claim, as elements, both tbe druIIl and the spray-pipe, although an ambiguous correspondence between the, patent:office ana Inventor, and t4e fact that the solution llischarged by the spray-pipe was alkaline, be urged in favor of construetio.n of claim, incl1,1dingQnly the spraying device; and defendant, not employing the saltfnj;f drum. does not infrin'1e.
2. SAME-ExTENT OF CLAIM-!NI1RINGEMENT. The natural construction 0If the tbird claim
Bill in: equHy by David F. Stauffer against Hartison Spangler, H Samuel Spangler, George H. Smith, and W. H. Soader to restrain infringement of letters patent 345, 186, issued to complainant July 6,1886, for apparatus for treating unbaked bretzels. Bill dismissed, claims 1 and 2 declared invalid, claim 3 restricted and declared not infringed. JOB. a. Fraley, for complainant. Strawbridge & Taylqr, for respondents.
AQHESON, Circuit Judge. The bill charges the defendants with the infringement of letters patent No. 345,186. granted July 6, 1886, to the plaintiff, David F. Stauffer, Jor improvements in apparatus for treating unbakedbretzels and crackers and other similar articles formed of dough for baking,'" so as to mote conveniently give tf'Jem the glazed and salted surfaces characteristic of such articles when baked." 'fhe specification states that tht:lretofore the dough, when formed into proper shape, "has been dipped. ih a suitable solution, and the salt afterwards sprinkleq over the same byhand, which is a slow arid tediousoperation, involving the loss, in addition, of considerable material, which is scattered and ,The declared object of the invention is." to provide an apparatus by which these operations may be conveniently and thorot;lgh1y effected with comparatively little loss of material, and in a much more thorough and e:x;I , - . ) .·
Re\>ortedby Mark Wilks,Collet, Esq., of the Philadelpbiabar.
peditious manner than heretofore." The apparatus shown by the illustrative drawing and described in the specification consists of a trough, above which moves an endless carrier or apron, which conveys a reticulated bhaft, upon which the articles to be treated are placed; "a small boiler or vapor generator," in which there is a steam-coil for heating the solution; a pipe, with side perforations in the lower part, where it is within the generator, and extendinK from near the bottom of the generator through the top and up to a perforated spray-pipe above the ca.rrier; at the other end of the trough, and above the carrier, a hollow perforated drum, mounted so as to rotate, and to be "charged with salt, to be sprinkled upon the articles;" and a pipe to conduct the superfluous liquid from the trough down to a collecting vessel or tank, which communicates with a pump, whereby the contents can be pumped into the generator. The specification thus describes the operation: "The boiler or generator is nearly filled with the solution. and steam, being let into the coil at high pressure, raises the liquid to the boiling point. The boiling solution and its steam together pass through the perforations in the sides of the pipe,and thence to the spray-pipe, where both are discharged upon the pans of bretzels traveling beneath them at the proper rate of speed upon the belt. The effect of this spray of salt solution and stf'am is to 'boil ' the bretzels, precisely as in the old method. where they were dipped in a boiling pot: and by the time they have passed from beneath the sprays the necessary glaze and color has heen given to them. As they travel along upon the belt they drain through the open wire pan, the surplus solution falling into beneath, whence it is conducted to the tank, and, while still hot, the pumped back into the generator, to repeat the operation." The claims are as follows: "(I) The combination. with the generator, of the perforated pipe, leading from near the bottom of the genemtor. and connecting with a perfol'ated spraypipe above the carrier. whereby the alkaline solution is forced out of the generator and sprayed over the articles, substantially as specified. (2) The combination, with the generator and perforated pipe, of the spray-pipe and casing, located over the carrier. substantially as specified. (3) The combination. with the generator and the spraying and salting devices, of the collecting trough, Whereby the salt solution is collected, and the tank and pump with the pipes for conveying the salt solution back to the generator. substantially as specified." The solution commonly employed in treating bretzels and similar articles for the purposes contemplated by the patent, is an alkaline solution, composed of water and potash or lye, and is hot when used. This treatment was old at the date of Stauffer's alleged invention, the articles being dipped(as stated in his specification) in the heated solution; and the most that can be said of the plaiptiff's method of applying solution is that thereby the work is more rapidly done. Now, taking up the first and second claims of the patent in suit, we clearly perceive that the several devices or parts entering into the combinations therein set forth were all old, and that in the plaintiff's apparatus each part operates in its old way. In Etzenberger's United States patent of April 1, 1879, for an improvement in apparatus lor making infusions,.· we find a genert'J,tor having therein a steam-coil to heat the·
J'EDPAL RJWORTJm, voL 50.
as'in Stauffer's apparatus,together with a perforated pipe extending from near the bottom of the generator through its top, and thence upwardly, for the purpose of delivering the liquid to a. device above, which is effected by steam pressure when steam is raised in the generator by heat from the steam-coil. Again, Mitchell's United States patent of September 8, 1874, shows a machine for steaming cakes and crackers, having an endless apron,upon which the articles are placed', and by which they are carried past the steam-ejecting nozzles, whereby a stream of moist steam is thrown upon them; the device baving a steam-supply pipe, and also a water-supply pipe to moistl:n the steam with "aqueous spray or vapor." Then the patent of Oberle and Janggen,of July 10, 1883, discloses an apparatus for steaming jumbles, crackers,' etc., ,before baking, consisting of a within which are spraypipes with fine perforations for emitting steam, an endless apron with a moving ,mechanism and means for regulating the speed; the articles to be treated being placed upon the apron, and thereby carried under the stearnsprny-pipes. Such being the known state of the art, the idea ofsubjecting bretzels to the bath 01 hot alkaline solution by the use of mechanical appliances an/llogous to those employed in steaming crackel1ll!nd ,like articles, required for its accomplishment nothing more than the exercise of ordinary mechanical skill. It is to be borne in mmd, too, that no new result was therehy secured, nor, indeed, any better result th,an is e,ffected by dipping the articles in the heated solution. The conclusion that Stauffer's ti1'llt and second claims do not disclose anything of patentable novelty is in line with the rulingil in Hollister v. Mznufacturi'llg (h., 113 U. S. 59, 5 :::;up. Ct. Rep. 717; Aron v. Railroad Co., 132 U. S. 84, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. ,24; Burt v. Evory, 133 U. S. 349, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 394; and many other like adjudications. As respeGts the third claim of Stauffer's patent, it is only necessary to say that, as the defendantS'machine does not contain the perforated drum or anyequival,ent salting device, the salt Leing sprinkled by hand upon the .articles after they leave. the machine, there is no infringement of that claim. The plaintiff's counsel, indeed, has made an ingenious but argument to show that the third claim does not include the perforated drulll,or any equivalent therefor; but thnt the phrase · and.salting devices" refers altogether to the one device tor spraying the alkaline solution. The basis for this argument is that the lile wrapper shows that the office rejected a claim which had as elements the spray-pipe and the perforated drum as a mere·aggregathl11. But this argument loses any force it might otherwise have when we come to note that the collecting trough, by whiqh these two devices were connected, was oirlitted from rejected claim. The construction upon which the plaintiff here in"ists is a torced ono, contrary to the specification throughout, and against the words and plain meatling of the claim. The sprinkling of salt over the. hretzels by a distinct operation, after they ha\Te been treated with the alkaline solution, is a prominent feature of the invention; and the mechanical device for so salting the articles is lully explained in the specification, and shown by the dl'awings. By the described operation th&
liqriia'in the generator,
ACTIEBOLAGET SEPARATOR tl. SHARPLESS.
articles are first brought "under the spraying device;" and, after being sprayed by the. solution, are then brought "under the perforated drum." to be salted. To hold, then, that. the words "spraying and salting devices" mean the "spraying device" alone, to the exclusion of the salting device, would be to violate every recognized canon of construction applicable to the subject. The foregoing views being decisive of the case, I do not deem it necessary to consider other matters of defense which counsel have discussed. Let a decree be drawn dismissing the bill, with costs.
(Oiroutt Oourt, E. D. PennBtlt1lanta. December 80, 1891.) L PATENTSl!'OR INVENTIONS-ExTENT.Ol!' CLAIMS.
Bill in equity by the Actiebolaget Separator and the De Laval Separator Company against Phillip M. Sharpless to enjoin the infringement of letters patent No. 298,314; for improvement in centrifugal creamers. Bill dismissed. J08.C;Prciley, for complainants. Geo. J. Harding and Goo. 1Iarding, for respondent. ACHESoN,;Circuit Judge. The ,bill of complaint charges the defendaI).t with infringement of letters patent 293,314, granted February 12, 18&4, to Gustav De Laval, for an improvement in centrifugal creamers. The invention relates to a class of machines well known ar,td in use for the separation of compound fluids,and more particularly used for creaming milk, and delivering the cream and the separately, by the agency of centrifugal force. The ordinary creaming machine consists of a revolving globular metallic vessel, into which the new milk is fed, mounted upon a vertical shaft, and rotated by suitable mechani81l1 with great rapidity, and with such effect that a separation of the cream from the skim-milk takes place,. the latter by reaSon of its greater specific gravity being thrown outwardly against the
by Mark WilKS Collet, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.