of the Ennis invention., The fact that the which waa old at the Ennis machine is operated with two strips of paper, while the defendants' machine uses only one, I do not think of material importance. Thidir.'lt claim of the Ennis patent is for an apparatus which accomplishedaresult unknown in the art up to that time, and the defendants1 apParatus accomplishes the same result thr01.1gh the same, or wellknQ)Vn, or equivalent instrumentalities, and, therefore, their machine is witbiQ. the Ennisinveution. Decree for complainants.
GAHEWELL FlRE-ALAR.M TEL. CO.
. . . , " .
D. MassaChu$et't8. August ,10, 1892.)
of ,the operllitor's will, the reception of emergency . signals.le alwaysmar!l;ed 1;>1 t1;>.e ofa bell, while the reception of patrol signllls on the same register is ' l1ever accompanied' by an alarm, were not anticipated by .·it!llll:!'· the patel;lt 0;( :,fuJi! 26, 1881, to J. W. Stover, for "improvements in tele..relaYs," the Field patellt ofJune 19,1888, for an apparatus for recording , stoCk'quotations, or 'the Wilson 'patents of March 8,1885, and June 9,1886, relating toa mUDlclpal telegraph,apparatus.
" . Noye,li,' for
INVENTIONS-ANTICIPATION-MUNIOIPAL SItlNAL ApPARATUs,;
Ii.tin g ,to a syste,,m ,Of municipal signals, whereby, auto-
and 859,688, \)Qth fssued March 22, 1887, to Bernice :r.
.Billl;ly Signal Company against the GameCOiUpa,nYlind others (or- infringement of patents. De",. . Fish, R,icha:r:d[jQn & Storrow, forcomplainant. OJw,rle8 lV. Jy,daon, (''ircllit Judge.. Th.e present sllit is brought upon letters patent No,. 359,q87 and No. 35fl,688, both dated March 22, 1887, issued to to the complainant. In a municipal signal Bernice J.Noyes, system it is desirable to',distinguish the important from the unimportant messages rl\ceived at the central station from the signal boxes. The Noyes inventions are for devices by means of which the receptionoi emergency signals at the main station is marked by the ringing of a bell, while. in the case of ordinary patrol signals no alarm is sounded. Both classes of. signals are. made and received upon a single register. This result iEl/accomplished l;ly changes in the electrical current. In the first the specific method of producing the current change is by the strength of the current for ordinary signals, and breaking the circuit entirely for emergencysignalsj in other words, the selective action is produced by varying the strength of the current. In the second patent, which is for an improvement on the first, the epecific method using short impulses or dots for ordinary signals, and for
MUNICIPAL SIGNAL CO" V.GAMEWELL FIRE4LARM TEL. CO.
emergency signals, in addition to these Jots, one or more long ('urrent impulses producing dashes; in other words, the selective action 1s produced by variation in the duration of current impulses. The multiple signal transmitter of Noyes consists of a break wheel with insulated portionson its surface. The periphery of the disk is provided with several groups of signals, so that when brought into co-operation with a contact pen one or another signal is transmitted. The action is automatic, and does not depend on the will of the operator,-that is, one class of messages will always be accompanied by an alarm, and another class will never sound a warning. Infringement is charged as to the first claim of t4e first patent, and all the claims of the second patent. Claim 1 of the first patent is aa follows: . ".A system for transmitting signals from a substation to a central tJtation over a main circui.t, wberein are combined a multiple 'signal transmitter, wllich is l()cated at tbe substation, and constructed and arranged to tranl3mit several different signals by current, changes of one ()r another cbaracter, a mesRage receivillg instrument at the central statiOn, wbicb receives tbe signal transmitted, an'd an audible alarm, also located at the said central station, whicb rcspondstothe current change of one character only, whereby an audible warning may be sounded for some and not forotber signals, substantially as· described."
It is unnecessary to consider specifically the claims of the second patent. defense set up in this case,is that, by reason of prior The patents and the so-called "Wood device," the:re was nothing patentable in the Noyes apparatus. With respect to these prior patents, it may be observed, generally, that they do not show the invention of Noyes, and that it is only by reorganizing in one way or another these old devices that they can be made to anticipate the Noyes patents. The first patent relied upon by the defendants was granted to J. W. Stover, July 26, 1881, for improvements in telegraphic relays. The object of the invention, as stated by the patentee, is "to provide a compound relay I which may be operated both by the secondary currents of an induction coil and by changes in. the magnetism of the core of the induction coil itself." This patent is for a device in which two transmitting keys and two electro-magnets may be included in the same circuit under such conditions that one electro-magnet will respond to the movement of the first key and not to that of the second, while the other electro-magnet will respond to the movement of the second key, exclusively, or to the movement of both keys. The double relay of Stover has two coils about the soft iron core, the primary coil included in the main circuit being wound outside the secondary coil, which is inside and wound directly on the core. The strengthening or weakening of the primary current through the primary coil sets up a secondary current in the inner coil, which is in local circuit, with magnets in such circuit having a polarized arma· ture, and such induced current operates this polarized armature, and v.52F.no..5-30
thereby closes :ailooal the reoeiving 'Theintention of tM patent is tliat·'this reoeiver may be affecthig the other receiver, which can only be opetated byi.mpulses sent over the'Iilain current of 'gtMter istrengthand dUration, In this device no mention is made of the multiple transmittetof the Noyes non, which is so constructedaa to transmit seve'i'al different signals by current changes of different character. was applicable specifieally to police signals,and the system works automatically. Stover's compound relay cdntains, no snggestionof this character; he uses two transmitting devices, and actuates one otboth of the receiving instruments at will.' There is no suggestion of different classes of mesto be audibly or of a multiple transmitter.which must always actuate one receiving instrument, and upon which only a in np way, upon the will of certain to nothing but a receiving dethe operator. i,The vice, and it does notd lntain,ordesci'ibethe Noyes invention. At the mdstitoply suggests oftliilthlvention; .' , ",' 'TheField 'belongst6Jm(same class as that of Stover. It iafor a'pistrict, stock it, is so, ,construc,ted d:iat,the may accompany any message with an alarm signal. Two magnets are UiSed, one·neutral and the other polarized. The neutral or printing magnet is operated in the usual manner, by m'aking and breaking th'e circuit. When, however, the operator desires to ring the alarm, he reverses the printing current, and so operates both1the printing and polarized magnets, and thereby rings the alarmbelk clellrthat this is not the Noyes invention. The operatotcansEmd a message-without an alarm, Ol' he may send the same IIiessage>with an' 'alarlI1, deperiding'Upon hill'wiH. 'The eSsence of the' 'Noyes invention is that every message of a cartaill kind must be acby an', alarm, while every message of a different kind shall never be accompaniedpy an alarm. , In the Field apparatus the operator may transm:itthe sarhe;messogeon-dit;tinct occasions, and may ring the bell on one occasion and fiot on the other. There is no 'Suggestion in the Field patent of a multi:pletransmitteradapted to send messages by cur" rent changes of different character in the sense of the Noyes patent. The Field invention would be of little, if any, value in the Noyes apparatus, and the Noyes invention is wholly tlhsuited for carrying out the invention of Field. : ' As for the Wilson patents, it is only necessary to refer to those dated March 3, 1885, and' .Tulne 9, 1886. 'With respect to the first the inventor says: "My invention relates t() a municipal telegraph apparatus, and is intended to be- used in connection withapP'atatus of the kind shown in letters patent N6.288,536, dated November 13, 1883." After describing the apparatus he proceeds as follows: ... I' " ' , "In accordance with my former patent referred to. it was intended that the policeman, on arriving at each box, should transmi t to the main office a patrol signal showing that he was properly making his rounds, which patrol signal was recorded by the same instrument employed to record the particular wants
MUNICIPAL SIGNAL. CO. tl. GAMEWELI. FIRE ALARM TEL. CO.
",bich it was possible for both the policeman .and citizen to indicate at the main office. The reception of both patrol calls and want calls on the same insttumellt is objectionable. as the patrol calls reqUire no service. anu will nsually greatly outnumber the want calls. and the reception at the main office. on the same instrument, of signals reqUiring no immediate service and those requiring immediate attention is liable to result in and foster a tendency to carelessness. whereas, if the signals demanding immediate service, or which are in answer to signals conveyed to the policeman from the main office, are the only ones which are recorded. the attendant at the main office is kept always alert whenever the recording instrument is started. knowing that each signal so recorded demands immediate service. The present system of receiving signals at the boxes from the main office enables these objectionable patrol signals to be dispensed with. because the fact that a signal may at any time be awaiting a policeman at his boxes is a snfficient inducement to cause him to go to the boxes at the prescribed times. as he knows that his failure to respond to such a signal will surely be detected and have to be accounted for, and he cannot know in advance. or until after opening the box, whether 01' not a signal is awaiting him." From the foregoing language it will be observed that Wilson consid· ered the reception of both patrol calls and want calls on the recording instrument as objectionable, and therefore the only signals conveyed to the central station and there recorded were those requiring immediate attention. It is manifest that this is not the system found in the Noyes pateriis. In the patent referred to as "the second Wilson patent," two registers are described, one for recording emergency signals, and the other for patrol signals. This plainly is not the Noyes inven,tion, wherein only one recording instrument is used, The defendants have also introduced a box invented by Frank B. Wood, and his abandoned application for a patent filed in February, 1877, I have carefully examined the eviqence bearing upon this alleged prior invention. Taking the whole evidence, I find that the use Wood made ot his invention was only experimental. Wood testifies that his box was sent to.the patent office 'with his application for a patent. It may be presumed that this box is still in existence, and if so, why is not the original, or 1\ box like it, properly authenticated, produced in evidence? This would show exactly its construction, and it would be far than the somewhat varied descriptions of the box given by the three witnessel3 called in his support. The evidence of the experimental use of the box in the New York office of the American District 'felegraph Company is not satisfactory, These experiments were made l3urreptitiously, at night. The construction of the district telegraph apparatus was such that no proper test could be made of the Wood box without the whole telegraph system, because that system operated by means of short interruptions of the circuit producing only dotll, and therefore an apparatus designed to produce both dashes and dots, or "longs" and "shorts," like the Wood device, would not operate unless changes. were made in the telegraphic apparatus. I have not lost. sight of Wood's testimony as to the change he says he made in this particular, and I am aware of the language used by Wood in his rejected application. Giving due consideration to all this, I am still
o(oplni<>tl that tMs
and the Noyes patents.
prior invelltion has not been, established by proof which is necessary.in order to invalidate Decree for complainant.
'D. GAMEWELL FIRE AT,ARM TEL.
Co. et al.
(Oircuit court, D. Ma88ach/u8etts. August 10, 1892.)
PATENTSJ'OR L"lVENTIONS LIMITATION OJ' CLAIM PRIOR ART- MUNICIPAL SIGNAL
Letters patent No. 844,4S0, issued June 29, 1886, to John C. Wilson, for an electric signal bOX, covers, in claim 6, a box in wbich a citizen's key removes an ob8tacle from the sJ.gnaling crank, and the signal, is then operated by the crank, whose haIfdie projects through the door. The key, after performing its function, is, sO as to prevent its Withdrawal by means of mec4aniBm oPerated by the Inovemel),t of the door, the key being held while the door is closed, and releaseii when' thMloor is opened.' The claim is for a signal box in which the mechanism is "cOntrolled "by a that, in view of the prior state of the art, as shdwn by letterspatet1t No. 157,002, issued November 17,1874, to Z. P. Hotchkiss, and by'the Wright, Holley & Miles patent of June 17, 1878, the claim cannot be construed to cover a signal box in which *e transmitting mechanism is operated directly by the key, and withollt any further action by the operator.
In Equity. Suit for infringement Of patent. Fish, Richardson &- Storrow, for complainant. Charlea N.' Judson, for defendants.
COLT, Judge.. This suit relates to electrical signal boxes used in a municipal signal system. It is upon the alleged infringement ot three letters patent,-No., 157,002, dated November 17, 1874', issued to Z. P.Hotchkiss l No. 344,430, dated June 29, 1886, issued dated November 13, 1883, issued to John C. Wilson, and No. to John C.Wilson and MiltonG. Davis'. As the Hotchkiss patent has now expired, it is no longer relied upon by the complainant. The date of applicIitionfor the Wilson patent is earlier than the date of application far the Wilson &'D.llvis patent.' The complainant, being satisfied that both these patents contain the same invention" has elected to stand in this case upon the Wilson patent alone.· In order to understand the scope of the i ":ilsonp'atimt1 it is necessary to 'briefly review the state of the art at the time the Was made. Electric signal boxes are used to convey' a· central station an alarm. of fire,. or other like signals. should be sent with the Three requisites s,eeni to be necessary: The least 'delay; it, should be correct; and the sendi'ng of unauthorized signals :s119t!.ld be. prevented, as 'far as possible. The box is connectedby With the central statiQn,'iuld the message is transmitted by alternately 'opening and closing the 'electric drcuit at the signal box. means of a key which operates a break wheel with a This is notched periphery. the raised portions of the wheel touching a fixed contact