788

FEDERAL REPORTER,

vol. 41.

jUdgment, the proofs establish that the peculiar features above mentioned, present in the defendant's dies, are necessary for the acdom m.ent of the work required of them, and that, both in construction and It is operation, the dies of the respective parties differ m.anifest from the patent itself that the dies land k were specially de· signed for use in that system of manufacture first described in the specification, and treated therein at such length, and they work efficiently in welding together the two half face-plates as the last step in that method. But the evidence satisfies us that those dies nre not adapted for successful use in the system of manufacture practiced by the defend· ent. Upon the whole, we are of opinion that the chnrge of infringement here made has not been sustained by the proofs, and the bill of complaint must be dismissed. Let a decree be drawn dismissing the bill, with costs. .'
-i'

INNIS'tI. OIL CITY BOILER WORKS.

(O'£rcutt Oourt, W. D. P.ennsyWanta. February.28,
,

t890.)

1.

':. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PRIOR STATE ,Ol' THE ART--STEAM."ENGINEB.

s;

Letters patent No. 230,946, for an iliiPTovement in steam-engines. 'grantlld to Will· lam,J. Innis, August consideree'!. with reference to the priorst3te of the art, and construed, ane'!. hew, not to be infringed by the defendant's engine.
' ,

S.u.m-EXTENT OF CU.IM:"'-EXHAUST CJuMBER FOR STEAM-ENGiNES. '

,,' '.W.he.re.,in a p.atent.for an impro.vemen.t in steam-e.nginest:each Uf. thlhjlaims sp.eci:llea.as one of the elements an "e;x:haust chamber, "the e'!.eslgnatipn.illA lim· it&:tion, importing a compartment fOr bole'!.ing spent steam, and a construction of the claims'whioh woule'!. take ina live 8team passage-way is inadini8sibls.'

..... · Jarn.eB;,(J. Boyce I\nd W. Bakewell, for complainant. 0.60" H. Jvhn K. HaUvck, ,for respondent. Before MCKENNAN and ACHESON, JJ. , ACHESON, J. This suit is brought for the-alleged infringement ofletters patent'No. 230,943, fOf all improvement in steam-engines, granted to WilliaJll;J. Innis, August 10, 1880. The declared object of the inventionis construct "the cylinder, steam-chest or valve chamber, and exhatlstcham,ber of in a better, stronger, more compact, and cheatwfmanner tha.n has hitherto been done, and to effect a frea discharge condensed water. from the cylinder. 'rhespecifkation furtheraets, forth that .as generally constructed the cylinders of steam· engines aredirst cast·separately, and must be planed and finished to receive the steam-chest, which must be likewise finished, "as also the exhaust chamber;" and tbeseare then secured together by bolts and nuts, which iaex;pensive, and leaves the joints liable toleak. It isihen stated that. ,to obviate these difficulties, the ,patentee casts the cylinder, (A,) the or valvechlll11ber, (B,) ahd the exhaust chamber, (0,) all in

I!\!\IS V. OIL CITY BOlLER WORKS.

789

one piecej and secures compactness and strength by having the steamchest or valve chamber and the exhaust chamber in the base supports the cylinderj and that, by suitable cores in the casting, unnecessary weight is avoided, and an air-jacket is provided for the sides of the steamchest or valve chamber. Fig. 1 of the drawings, which is a longituflinal section of the casting, shows a prolongation, (lettered 1<',) which the specification states is "an extension of the exhaust chamber to accomdate a greater length of heater pipes than could be placed in the chamber, .C." The patent has six claims, of which we quote two as specimens of alL
"(1) The'combination of cylinder, A, piston-valve chamber, B. and exhaust chanlber, C, arranged' substantially as shown, and produced at one operation of casting. (3) As a new article of manufacture, a cylinder, valve chamber, exhaust chamber, air-jacket'!l,upports, flanges, and suitable ports inone piece, constructed and arranged su.bstantially as shown and described."

The. enters into the fourth and fifth claims, but the "exhaustchamber" is named ,as an element in every omlof the six claims. Several distinct defenses are set up, but,in' the view we take of the case, it is only necessary for us to consider the denial of infringement. . The casting for the defendant's engine embodies in one piece a cylinder and piston-valve, chamber, arranged substantially as shown in the plaintifi"s patent, and also a port or longitudinal passage-way, for the flow of live steam from the boiler to the piston-valve chamber, locatedbelew the valve chamber, and: in the same, relative position as the plaintiff's chamber, Cj and the defendant's engine has an exhaust <:hamber in another and distinct casting, which is bolted to the outside of the cylinder casting. Now,it is plain thatthe defendant does not use .any of the combinations of the patent in suit, unless his live steam pas.sage-way is the equivalent of the plaintiff's exhaust chamber, C. But the defendant's passage-way ddes; not perform the function of a chamber in .any proper sense ofJluJ.t term. In fact, it is a sirpple conduit for the transmission of steam 'under full pressure. It is wide of the mark to say that the defendant's live steam passage-way might be employed as an exhaust port, when in factitnever has bee1'1used for that purpose, ana no :such use is contemplated. Moreover, the evidence shows that it is too .small for practical use as an exhau'st chamber for holding heating-pipes. Again, "exhaust is a specific term. The name imports a compartment: for holding spent steam. The specification of the patent unthat tlje purpose of the exhaust chamber, C, is for heating, by means of exhaust steam therein, feed water, by passing it through pipes placed in the cham ber. The patent contains no intimation that chamber C perfonPs any other function, and it would be an unwarrantable expansion of the claims to construe the terln "exhaust chamber" as covering a live steam passage-way. The conclusion that the . designation "exhaust chamber" is a term of limitation is supported by tim decision in Bridge v. 'B'I'own, 6 Fish. Pat. Oas. 236, where-the inveiltionconsisting of an apparatus fOl'making extr8'ctll from tanbark'by: .the 'liltilimtion of exhaust steam, and on6of theelementa of the claim'was'

190

nDERAJ, J1E:PORTER ;

vol. 41.

the. work was done-:-it was held that,apipe the bOiler was not the equivalent oLthe(.'exbaust pipe, D.", confirmation of the correctness of our it may be .stated that 'defendant's proOfs. establish the construction and, use;0(ah, engilWthe DaYisengine-prior to the dateofthe plaintiff's invention, in whieh the. cy:linder, piston-,.alve. chamber, and.a live steam passage-way were caat.in one piece; the three mentioned :parts hn\Ting the same relative pol,lS the same parts .in: the defendant's engine. And the plaintiff's expert, Mr. Porter, admits that, inresp.ect to these matters, the defendant'i! engine more nearly. resembles, the Davis eIl:gine .than it does the plaintiff's. This evidence was objected to for want of .the prescribed statutory notice. Butit was not offered to defeat the plaintiff's patent by provihg'anocipation,'but the,p'iior state of thlHut, and we think was admissible' undertlieauthonties. "Brown; v. Piper, '9'1 U. S. 37; Dunbarv.Myers, 94 187; Sla'W8otl v; Railroad 00., 107U. S. 649, 2 Sup., Rep; 663. 'N.ow, the effeot·oHhis proofis 10 preclude a construction of the claims of the, patent Which would take in the defendant's live steam 'passage-way-;;8ndt0 require ,that the term "e,xhaust chamber" shall be accepted .initsmatural and more literal signification. As we have already seen, theexbaustchambeds an element in every claim of the patent, and it mlist. be dreoeived :in the same in aU. The result, therefore, is oo:infringemendLhas been shown, and the bill of complaint must ber dismissed. Let. a, decree be drawn dismissing the

the, ."exhaust pipe, D/' Jor conducting the exhaust steam ma. qox where

bill, with,costs.

},.

"

'ttl

I;,;; , ,·'d.u

1",

: '.f ;",

• - -;
  "
  

-.'

.;.' .

",.

!I

d "

l,

:!:

boij,'rt, V.

VemUkt..... ' ¥archU;lBOO.)· "', , , ,. ,

L PA'!'1IWt'a c 'IAltte.-.,patent DOn", foranimprovement in 1,ene frai;Jles of stereOilcllpes, oonsistinl{ iii making the lens-holder itself as large fronts formel'ly used; and mbbetting out its Inne1'Eldge into a groove, to ,the end of the hood, is want
B.

,,'in 110 suit torest,1'a,In, the lnfl'i, of a patent; the deu!linp;the preciile thing in,the.patent 'aw,that the patent haB acquiesced in by every on,e except tqe and. even b>;,\lim for a long 'tiinela preUmillary injunction niay issue,·thdUgh there haB been'no p'rior adjudlcaoUbe paWIit., , . . ir ' : ' ;. ., .

INJ1jJ\iC:rJON..

' . " " ,. "

",:.,

.

On motion for preliminary: injunction.' " j " James;!{,: BaJ.chdder, for

In

,scott, for orator.

J ';"

.'

,,:

.1;

J. ,This.suit is brought upon letters patent No. 151,576,
1874jand granted to: (Henry Dorr for an improvement in i ·.. appears to hllive been pat-