/
hislnjunetlori' !]ntil the; Bnalhearlng,r when the. court 'will proofs, to,aseertain facwW J :,i: , r<![; think the practice, gO ooge sound, and I 'lIlia.U follaw it. The nlotioidotpreHminaryinjunotion is, denied.
is
. , . /1 '..
i 1 t:"
1'
' ! '
; \J
!
'Y;',:,:( J'l'
I ,
(
'
)" I
"
-' >.1-1
'1'/:,
:J
l .J j . ·'·-In c' : >
Fnrn-ExrINGIDsRER' Co. ,
'to HOLt.OWAY. i,;, '",' :,:, ,",'
l'\;
,,: ,!" ,',
':1
(etreu(& Cour-r.,D.,MlllII'1Ilana. June iJ ,', ' , "',' ':, Ii. ,,',c', : ! " " ,
,'1'
" to
claim bfpBtelitNo: '147;442. tebrua.ty 10; John a Qll..t, In.O,heJIllC,ai, ,ftre,' ""ali,d,"t,ha, wndini ': ,.' \ ,'::3:;
Steiner, for g ad-
thuoV'-
'. i
' , , ' "
L
;.
"', '(Ii :.1., J.. :,)tlifJldnder and Jo1m ; for deferidallt. !""'-'Ii
""',-:
fOJ.'lcomp!ainant8."" ,;.;j ',,'1
.' 'I:,;
a ilft -iiiifril1gEll1ien,tby' thelldefei?-dant of letters No." 147,442, 0; '1874 4, grati'fed t6 John irichetnical'fire-extihguishers, The to fourth ,claim"of the patent, ' ' , " ) i , :': ,'" "i " , :·'(4) ,!&'cl&emlciilflJreJenjfhiil',t ¢()'iMstbfg"Of tranteprovidoo wIth ,a geJieratClr'tlrb'tlngllisher, 'and: reekN, ·the latter "haring Q. it alii , . ii, .:: .. The .patentee disclaims.anynovelty in. the:hollow-joumaled reel itself, 'and:iI1 hiB'spooi:ficatioos'states:: ',;:" :,. ,ii " ,c.' ,,: "Iaml,,"afiethat'il hollow.jou1"J'I«lMreel,suchas'used" by'me' intbiSEliiis,nGt bew, '8.-011 I i il.8f; mp clairiI, thefetoexcept in conneotion j t:\u} 1'I1l tl4own." J t' , ' 'Ji, Allthbugh, ,by, ,t,he defendant's anSwer 'almost eVlerY",possible is -pleaded,'.no'pl'oo{was introduced to su,pport anyone of them e:ltceptthat 'df ptiorinvtlu.tion;:andi in SUPPo'l'llof !that only fouf prior patents wete "filed t and no <btbel!iproof of,pnQt pubUe.ationor knowrtusewasproduced. Theoefeadant, who hwd)eena leading manufacturer ofchem. lieal/fire.extinguishers since 1872,: in his own testimony admitted the 'jringement,. and substantially admitted the novelty and :patenlability of ',:Steiner's mui'th claim·. It' is the defenditnt 'has desired to .: obtain a licansle:Jromthe and ,the adn1issionsin his testi' mony and the weakness of his defense cast some doubt upon the-serious,:'".:: ' . ",,,II"""'! ,:",', ;',.': 'I':; ;.,.,; , ..... ! Some difiiculties with regard to.the:Stei ne r:foll1rthclliim.suggest them,:selves UpoDlQQjiDspectionof the: claim. They aTise1'frl>tnltpparent want I I
''',
in-
{;' ,
;',
,
STEINER
00. ,. RPJ,.LOWAY
ofp,o'1'elty and patentability...Itwas not new to use ordinary hose wound <!I) an o17dinary reel, mountati upon the same wheeled carriage with the generator/! ofachemical This is shown in patent No. 131,414, to Stillson & Kley, September l7, 1872. It is .admitted that hoUow-journaled it,gelf was new; and upon first impression it would seElm t4erewas no invention in the holreel for the I;')fdiIJary reel. There is no doubt; however, tl;1atthe pl'Oofshows thattl,1issubstitution is a very great improven1ent in tl;1e usefulness and efficieuGyof the machine for the purpose for which The }hollowjournal of the reel is permanently connected with tbe:generaior" or withtl;1e receiver of the generator, by a metal pipe controllell b)' a as to be always ready use, a.nd so anY required length of hose can be uncoiled without connection between it and the generator, and severing ,the Without doubt this is a. great advantage jn a machine which depends for its llsefulness upon the ,quickness with whichitcan be put to ty whicb suggests itseUupon fi rst im pression is whether, after,tl;1e::reeland thegelleratorare permanently connected, they do not eacho)leJ;ate just as before,rp.maining siQlply .an aggregation of separate elements l ' without any new result produced by their uuion. But, contrary t(>this first impression, all the proof which bas been prodllced, including the'testUnollyof the tends to show that not only t,b:eefliciency of tlle machine as. to its readiness forinstant t;llle grell,tly improvf1d by having the connection between the hose and the geQemtor,permanent, and the hose so attached that it caube used withQut uncoiling, more than; is reqJ)ired, but that the hollow itself acts as a revolving receiver for the gas and water, and effects a m,pre permanent commingling of them, and also more perfectly neutralizes any free acid which may be forced from the generator, and that it eliminates the risk of the escape of the gas without the water. Thus it is claimed that the hollow journal performs a new function, and avoids a difficulty encountered in other contrivances in which there was a liability of alternate discharges of gas and water, the two not being properly commingled, and. also avoiding the risk of'll. discharge of free Mfd which had not been entirely neutralized by thorough mixing. This, if true, is a new and bC:Qefkial result, due to the patented combination, quite apart from the mere mechanical convenience of having the hose and the generator permanently attached one to .theQther, arid it the claim from the objection which was fatal in Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353, and Thatcher Beating ('.0. v. Bwtis, 121 U. 8.,280,,7 Ct. Rep. 1034. ASs)lowing the utility of the Steiner cOlllbination, it is testified that since :itbas come into use it has ,become an essential part of aU chemical fire-extinguishers of the classon which the- defendant uses it, and that tbere is no market for those which do not have it; and as evidence that it did require invention to contrive it,thereis:proof that, although the diffioultieswhich it is said to meet were well known to many manufactl,lJ'ers.:wno were all trying to improve, their machines, no one discovered. its advant&geauntil Steiner introduceq. it, since wbich it 'has been ac-
FEDERAL REPOli'11EB: iVoI.
43.:
krtowledgoo to be an essential feature 'of' a good 'wheeled, chemical fireexUn'guisher. With all the testimony in the Case tending in one way, and with the legal presumption in favor of the validity of the patent to support it, it must beheld, for the purposes of this case at least, that the Steiner fourth claim is valid, unless the four patents put in evidence as anticipations defeat' it. These four patents are: (1) No. 131,414, September 17, 1872, to Stillson & Kley. This patent shows only the ordinaJlysolid spindle hose-reel, and not the hollow-journaled reel, which is the only element in controversy in the present case. (2) No. 142,488, September 2, 1873, to O. R. Mason, for improvement in devices for thawing ice from water or gas pipes. This shows the hollow-journaled reel, in connection with a force-pump, :but suggests nothing which the hollowjoutnaled reel alone would not as well suggest. (3) No. 142,637, Septerr'1ber'9,1873, to Finley Latta, for improvement in chemical fire-extingnishers. shows 'a rotary generator, around which the chose is woulid,so,tbatthe generator itself serves as a hollow journal. The defects'of this apparatus are quite obvious, and the testimony shows' 'that it Wlis pr?-cticallyuseless, and nevercould 'work, and it does not 'seem Wfue'to be a 'Step in the direction ofwhat was acconlplished' by Steiner. (4) ·No'.146·,386, January' 13, 1874, to Jahn Dillon/for ali improvement in This shows a hollow-journaledreel for a hose'pipe,'t6be connected with the ordinary water supply, and to be affixed I:<nhewall of abuilding. It does not seem to me to suggest anything in the direction ofthe complainant's device which the hollowjournaled' would not itself suggest. ,I do not find anyone ofthese. in usual form four patents' to be an anticipation. I will sign a in favor of the complainant. ,'.' i'
DEDERICK 'V. WILLSON.
(O£rcuie OO'Urt, E. D. Penn&yl1Ja'1!-1.a.
4-pril 28, 1890.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONs:"-PRIOR STATE 011' THE ART-INFRINGEMENT.
'The first chum of letters patent No. 170,997, to Peter K. Dederick, dated Deoem" lIer xeadlng as follows: "Ina bailing-press, the combination of the beatllJ' or feeaer, ll',' with the lever, L, and the' rodllT2, for the purposes herein set forth," , -is not invalid in view of the pl'ior ot the art. .
This was a bill in equity to recover for the infringement of letters patent No. 170,997, granted to Peter K. Dederick, the complainant, dated December 14, .1875, for improvementsinbailing-presses. The first claim only Of the patent, covering a pecuHar kind of' automatic feeding appliance., was put in issue. It reads as fol1ows: "In a bailing-press, the combinationof'the beater or feeder; E;i1Vith We.lever,L, and rode-2;, for ,herein set forth." The defense relied upon was want of invention, in view of the following patents: Walker, No. 27,584; 'Moore, N.o.. 83,080; lCcioper" No. 28, 970; and ,Dederick, .. .