81 FEDERAL REPORTER.
CONSOLIDATED SAFETY-VALVE CO. v. ASHTON VALVE CO. et aL (Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. May 7, 1897.)
PATENTS-INTERPRETATION-STEAM SAFETY VAl.VES.
The Richardson patent of .Tanuary 19, IS6\), for an Improvement In steam safety valves, properly construed, requires that the aperture in the ground joint, caused by lifting the valve, shall always be greater than the aperture for the exit of steam to the open air.
This was a suit in equity by the Consolidated Safety-Valve Company against the Ashton Valve Company and others for alleged infringement of a patent for an impro\'ement in steam safety valves.
Clark, Raymond & 'Coale and Frederic H. Betts, for complainant. James E. Maynadier, for defendants. COLT, Circuit Judge. This bill was filed May 6, 1885, and is based upon the Richardson patent of January 19, 1869, for an improvement in steam safety valves. As stated by complainant's counsel, t1?-e real question in this case is:
"Does the Richardson patent of 1866, or the Ricbardson patent of 1869, require that the aperture at the ground joint, caused by lifting the valve, should be always greater than the aperture from the pop chamber between the flange, n, and the rim, q, of the patent ot 1869?"
Upon a careful examination of the Richardson patent of September 25, 1866, and the Richardson patent of 1869, in connection with the decision of the supreme court in Consolidated Safety-Valve Co. v. Crosby Steam-Gauge & Valve Co., 113 U. S. 157, 5 Sup. Ct. 513, I am of opinion that the proper construction of the patent in suit reo quires that the aperture at the ground joint, caused by lifting the valve, should always be greater thnn the aperture for the exit of steam.into the open air. As the defendants' valve does not embody this construction, I must hold that there is no infringement, and that the bill should be dismissed, with costs. Bill dismissed, with costs.
HUNT v. ARCHIBALD et at. (Olrcult Court, D. Massachusetts. May 29, 1897.)
The Hunt patent, No. 547,921, tor an improved firecracker, In which the fuse Is held in place by a portion of the tube forced in and down to form ridges, extending towards the fuse, and forming a rosette with the fuse projecting from its center, Is void for want of novelty, considering the prior state of the art.
This was a suit in equity by Edmund S. Hunt against Thomas Archibald and others for alleged infringement of a patent relating to firecrackers. On final hearing. Maynadier & Mitchell, for complainant. George O. G. Coale, for defendants. COLT, Circuit Judge. This is a bill in equity, brought for the in· fringement of letters patent No. 547,921, granted to the complainant October 15, 1895, for an improved firecracker. The specification describes the invention as follows:
"My invention relates to closing the paper case or tube about the fuse or igniting device; and It consists in a firecracker In which the fuse is held In place by a portion of the tube forced in and down to form ridges, which extend toward the fuse, and cause the portion bent In to f()rm a rosette, with the fuse projecting from its center, as wlII be plain trom the drawings, which show a rosette formed by crimping in the inner portion ot the tube, A, along six radial lines, a, these lines slanting upward, and meeting at their inner ends about the fuse, B."
The drawings show a tool for making a rosette, and the specifica· tion further declares that: