RICKS 11. CRAIG.
169
the testimony in the case. Appellate tribunals have been created by the immigration law to correct any errors of the commissioner of immigration in cases where there is conflicting testimony. Where there is some competent evidence before the commissioner sustaining his ruling, this court will not interfere because there was also before him contradictory testimony, which he apparently disbelieved. The writ is dismissed.
RICKS, Jr., et al. (Circuit
'V. CRAIG
et
aZ.
Oourt, D. MaBBachU8ettB. November 6,1891.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONB-INFRINGEJlENT-PRIOR STATE OF AR'l'-ENGINE LUBRICAT-
Letters patent No. 214,589, issued' April 22, 1879, to Nicbolas Seibert, were for a Dew and improved feed indicllotor and reducing plugattacbments for oil-cups, used for oiling the steam-chest and cylinder of engines, so as to produce a uniform of oil. The specifications show tbat the discharge pipe of the oil-cup is connectilll directly with the that, owing to the \'arying pressure in the cheat, due te the opening and of. ports, tbe backward pressure of the steam the oil-cup would vary, and thus cause an unequal fiowofoil, and that the inventi6il is designed to equalize this pressure bY inserting in the discharge pipe, between the cup and the chest, a plug wittl an opening so small that steam could not through rapidly enough to communicate the rapid changes In the chest. Cla1in'2 . is for "the reducing plug, constructed and operated as and for the purposes described.". HeW. that, in vi!lw of the prior state of the art, this claim mustbe restricted to the purpose described, and it is not infringed by the patent of April 20, 1886, to William H. Craig, in whioh thE: pressure is made uniform by an "equalizing pipe," opening inte the discharge pipe and connecting with the steam-pipe at a point w.here the pressure is constant, and also baving an obstTUction in the discharlie pip.e, with a small·opening, fitted with a spindle valve, since it appears that thls latter device was for the purpose ot maintaining an equal pressure as a2'ainstth.e sucti{)n produced by shutting off the steam from the steam-chest when the locOmotive was running down grade. '
ORS.
In Equity Bill for infringement of patent. Thoma8 Wm. Clarke and Edmund Wetmore, for complainants. William K. Richardson and F. P. Fish, for defendants. COLT, J. The bill in this case charges the defendants with infringement of the second claim of letters patent No. 214,589, granted to Nicholas Seibert, April 22,1879, for a new and improved feed-indicator and reducing-plug attachment for oil-cups. This class of lubricators is used upon steam-engines. Two things seem to be necessnry to make a good lubricator,-the feed of the oil must be regular, and there must be an observation chamber, so that the engineer may see the quantity and regularity of the feed. The lubricator is generally fed by hydrostatic pressure. In the ordinary fonn of construction there is a pipe leading from the boiler or steam-pipe to a condensing chamber, where the steam is condensed into water. This chamber is connected at the bottom with the bottom of an oil reservoir. As the column ·of water is higher than the oil; the water passing into the oil receptacle will displace an equal
17,0
FEDERAJ;: ,imPORTER,
vol. 48.
quantity of oil;whi<>bis()artied bya pipe to the sight-feed in a glass observation chamber, and frotu, there. it passes through a discharge pipe -to the parts to be lubricated. As the steam enters the condenser under boiler pressure it is manifest that, in order to prevent this pressure from affeotingthe flow of the oil, there must he an equal back steam pressure in the discharge pipe.: by connecting the discharge pipe with the steam-pipe, or with the same steam space· as fills the condensing pipe. By this means there is secured a balanced steam pressure at the sight-feed, and the oil is fed regularly by hydrostatic pressure. This form of lubricator is applied to stationary engines. But in locomotive engines the discharge pipe is connected either with the dry pipe, which is analogp\l/3 ffi ,the. stea;t;n-pipe,leadiog into the steam-chest above the cylinder, 'or wHli 'the steam-chestj and under these conditions it becomes amoredifficu,ltproblem to produce ,a steam pressure upon the oil-cup. When the discharge pipe is connected with the dry pipe on the engine side of 'the throttle-valve, it is apparent that, when the is Qloseq in stoppiQg the:loconwtive, or in running down grade, the steam will be entirely ,cut off from the discharge pipe, and there will back ste,pn. pressure to counterbalance the forward pressure from thecOlldenser'llnd consequently the. flow of oil will be incre-ased. Again, the steam,-chest, which opens into the cylinder, there i800t only this unbalanced pressure to overcome, j,sa1fl9the of pressure conting from the steam-chest when the engine .. caused by the steaIIl;passing into the cylin. aenvhen.ijie,yalves in are open, ,remaining in' the steam-chl$when the valves are closed, inconsequence of which the 'will when open and greater whenl tbey. are shut. to meet and overcome the cauaed,b,y these differf·,pt'variations in steam pressure which form the subject-matter of the late-r;patented improveJl1.ents in lubricators. As the present controversy tums upon the proper construction to be given toone ofJhese improved deVices, it is necessary to briefly, reView the progress and state of theatt. ' In the early plttent Of, 1854 there is shown a lubricator having an observation chamber, but this apparatus involved the maintenance ofauniformhUlk!of air in the.'chamber which was found impracticable.anq oonseqoE!ntly there was·afiuctuating pressure. '.I.1he two patents granted to Gates,ldated September 20, 1870', and' April,29, 1873, were for sight-feed devices. In .the first patent the feed was measured by watel' dropping through the oil in a transparent chamber, while in the improvedsight-.feeddescribed in the later patent the oil passed in .drops upwa-rd, in a column of water incilosedina.transparent chamber. It may sa.id that Gatee was the first'iriveritor of a practical sight-feed in lubricait9rs.Seibel't,assignor. of complainants, took out his' firstpatenk''l'his invention shows Iii balanced steam pressure, but has nosigbtfeedl" The discharge pipe is connected directly with the steam-pipe fl'om:!1lie boiler, or with the same steam space as the' condensing pi}lej! goi that the backward pressure of steam through the
RICKS ,. CRAIG·.
1-71
discharge pipe is equal to the forward pressure in the condE:ll1ser. In 1876, Seibert took out a second patent. This deals with lubricators for railway engines. The specification says: "My invention relates to lubricators for railway engines. and is an improvement on my invention covered by ll'tters patl'nt No. 111,!:!81. dated February 14, 18'71; andit consists ill devices for equalizing the steam pressurl' upon the oil-cup when the steam is shut off from the steam-pipe, as is usually the case on down grades." In this apparatus the discharge pipe enters the dry pipe of the locomotive, and when the steam is sbut off by the throttle-valve there will be little ,or no back pressure to offset the forward steam pressure from the condenser, and the oil will consequently be forced out of the cup more rapidly tbania desirable for a proper feed. To overcome this dif· ficulty is the object of the invention. This is accomplished by what is called an "equalizing pipe,'"running from the discharge pipe to the condensing pipe, and thus connecting the discharge pipe with the steam from the boiler, or with the same steam space as supplies the condense.,. In 1878, Seibert took out another patent for a sigbt4'eed device. On April 22, 1879, the patent in suit was issued to him. This patent covers two improvements,-an improved sight-feed apparat'us, and apeculiarly constructed reducing plug, to secure an equable pressure ill the discharge pipe. The patent bas two claims. Tbe first relates to the sight-feed, and the second is for "the redncing plug, constrncted and· operating as and for the pnrposes described.'" It is only the second claim which is here in controversy. The reducing plug is a device for obstructinJt the discharge pipe, leaving only a small opening throngh the pipe. It may be placed at .any point in .the pipe, tboughpreferably Ilear the steam-chest; and .its object is to maintain "a nearly equable pressure in the pipe above the point at which it is placed." The specification then goes on to say: "The discharge pipe being connected and oppning into the steam-chest, (the pressure in which varies somewhat, being the Itlast as the ports are opened to admit steam to the. cylinder, and greater while portsBre closed.) and the plug being placed in the discharge pipe, the preSl'lUre in the discharge pipe above the rl'ducing plug is maintained at themedium pressure in the steam-chest, since the opening throul'h the plug is so small that, although the pressure is val'it·d in the steam-chest, it permits neither the passage of oil in one directiou nor steam in the other quickly enough to reduce or increase the pressure in theoU discharge pipe above that point." In his 1876 patent Seibert sought to overcome the unbalanced steam pressure arising from shutting ofl the steam in stopping the locomotive or in going down grade by means of the equali:7.ing pipe, while in his 1879 patent his object was to correct the fluctuations of pressure in the steam-chest when the engine is running, by the introduction of the reducing plug. . The defendants' lubricator is constructed after a patent granted to William H. Craig, April 20, 1886. The parts in this lubricator arearranged in a very compact form. It is only necessary to refer tq such features of the apparatus as bear upon the questions in this case. In
172
FEDERAJ;.B,El'ORTER,
the Craig lubricator the discharge pipe is connected with the steam-chest. 'rherE!,i/l also found an equalizing pipe, such as is seen in the 1876 Seibert patent. In the discharge pipe, near the steam-chest, Craig inserts a spilldJe ,valve. At this point the pipe is obstructed or dammed up nearly its whole diameter, leaving only a small 'orifice. In this small opening is· the valve-seat, and by turning the spindle the aperture may be 'entirely closed. The specification states that the purpose of the valve is for opening or closing this orifice. The contention of the complllinantsis thatthis obstruction or dam, having a small opening through it" and situated in the discharge pipe, is a reducing plug, and therefore within the second claim of the Seibert patent of 1879. This position is; resistedontwo.grounds:It is contended,-FirBt, tbat, in view of the prior state, of. the art and the language of the specification, the Seibert patent must be limited to the special form of reducing plug therein desoribed; and, second, that, however this may be,the defendants' valve is'.J;I.otinsertedin the discharge pipe for any such purpose as the reducing,plug in the Seibert lubricator, and has no such operation. ; As bearing upon thefirst'point; it iscadmitted that reducing plugs in· serted in pipeS for the purpose of partially obstructing the flow of liquid are is 'found in the earlier Flower patent of Febru· ary 19, 1878,an obstructed passage, corresponding to a reducing plug, in; the discharge pipe oia lubricator. The specification of the Flower patent leaves the question in doubt whether the discharge pipe is connected directly with the steam-chest, or, as in the Seibert patent of 1871, with the str-am-pipe from the boiler. It is admitted, however, that in the Flower lubricator, as constructed, the discharge pipe is connected with thf' steam-pipe, and, consequently, ;with. the same steam ,space as the condensingpipej in other words, the obstruction of the discharge pipe in the Flower apparatus was, in fact, only used in that form of lubricator where the steam in both the condensing and discharge pipes is derived from the same steam space, and therefore the Flower patent is no anticipation of the Seibert reducing plug, because that was intended to overcorne fluctuations in pressure in ariqther class of lubricators, where the steam in the comes frolna different steam space from that Seibert was the first to th,at of the condenser, and it is not apply a reducing plug to this kind of lubricator. If, with the history of the art betore us, the reducing plug of the Seibert lubricator is patentable by reason of the new results it accomplishes, then I am inclined t9the opinion that the difference in mechanical form·betweenthe Seibert plug and the Craig valve would not relieve the defendants from iJ;lfrjngement. The thickened-up discharge pipe, leaving a narrow openiIlg ,at a point above the steam-chest in the Craig lubricator, seems in COJ;lslructioIJ to be the equivalent of the reducing plug,wilh its screwthread, and having a narrow opening through it, of the Seibert patent. BJlt the more important inquiry remains whether the function or operatioJ;l qf devices is the same in both lubricators.' It is upon tQis qqestion that the case largely turns, and I must confess that it is npt free from: ,difficulty., The defendants deny that the part of their
RICKS
v.
CRAIG.
173
valve which nearly fills up the discharge pipe operates in any such way, or that it was introduced for any such purpose, as the Seibert reducing plug; and, if this proposition is true, then there is no infringement. The Seibert patent declares that the plug is introduced for the purpose of correcting fluctuations of pressure in the steam-chest, thereby securing an equable pressure in the discharge pipe above that point. The main object to be accomplished in a lubricator is to obtain regularity in the flow of oil at the sight-feed,-that is, only aeartain quantity of oil should be regularly discharged from the reservoir in a given time; and the chief purpose of the Seibert reducing plug is to secure this result by maintaining an equable pressure in the discharge pipe. Now, the defendants contend that this thing is done in their lubricator by the equalizing pipe, whereby they obtain a balanced steam pressure at the sight-feed from the sarnesteam space, and it must be confessed that this theory is supported by the testimony of the complainants' expert as well as the defendan ts'. The defendants further say that the purpose of the dam in their valve is to arrest the sudden flow of oil caused by the draft or suction in the pipes, which follows the sudden turning off of the steam from the stearn-chest when the locomotive is stopped or is running down grade. And here we reach this contradictory position of the parties to this suit. According to the theory of the 'complainants and the Seibert patents, the offioeo! the equalizing pipe is ,to correct the unbalcaused by suddenly shutting off the steam from the discharge pipe on stopping the engine, or on downgrades, which is the Seibert 1876 patent; and the office of the reducing plug is to correct variations of pressure in the steam-chest, when the engine is running, from affecting the feedj' or, more exactly stated, to maintain an equable pressure in the discharge pipe above where the plug is located. According to the theory of the defendants; the reverse is the case,-that is. the dam or valve in the discharge pipe secures a balanced pressure whel the steam is suddenly cut off from the discharge pipe on stopping thl and the equalizing pipe guards against any unbalanced pressure causell by the fluctuation of pressure in the steam-chest affecting the feed while the engine is running. Now it seems to me that the evidence in this case, and the better reasoning, is on the side of the defendants ali to the real office of the equalizing pipe and the throttled discharge in their lubricator. I think the defendants have shown, and that it il mechanically true, that their equalizing pipe meets the difficulty spring ing from the variation of pressure in the steam-chest when the engine it working, and that the main object of the dam in the discharge pipe iI, to arrest a sudden flow of oil, when a vacuum or partial vacuum existlJ in the steam-chest, caused by closing. the throttle-valve. It may be true that the reducing plug of the Seibert patent in suit will maintain an equable pressure in the discharge pipe above the point of its introduction, and consequently a regular flow of oil at the sight-feed while fae engine is running, but it appears uncontradicted in this record that {egularity of feed in the observation chamber, uncier these circumstan( es, is brought about in the defendants' lubricator by the equalizing p pej
:174
FEDERAL REPQRTER,
and· therefore the main gurpose of thecoIn·plainant.S' plug is accomplished ·indefendants'lubricator by the equalizing pipe. In view of the fact .thatanobstructed passage"wayor reducing plug in the discharge pipe, as applied to one form ofJubricators, was old at the date of the Seibert invention, I think the second claim of the patent should be limited to the purpose for which it was mainly,introduced by the patentee, and, if the,same result is reached in defendants' lubricator by other means, then it ianot within the Seibert patent. There is Orilyone remaining point to consider. ,The Seibert specification declares that, by means of the reducing plug, an equable pressure from the steam-chest is maintained mthe discharge pipe above the plug. The plug way be located at any point in the discharge pipe, though preferably near the steaw"chest. Now, whilEl it may be said that the Craig equalizing pipe causes a given quantity of oil to .be regularly ftld at, the sight-feed and down to the point where the equalizing pipe is joined to the discharge pipe, yet from that point in the discharge pipe to the steam-chest the oil would be subject to the fluctuations of pressure in the steam-chest. The main purpose of a lubricator is to provide me.answhereby only a given quantity of oil shall be taken from the reservoir in ,a given time, andtha! this shall flow at regular intervals through the observatioDchamber. The fact that this given quantity of the lubricant, after it :halil passed the sight-feed, or after it has passed the point of union between the equalizing pipe and the discharge pipe, should, in its further progress through the discharge pipe to the cylinder, be.subject to the variations of pressure in the steam-chest which take place when the engine is running', does not Stlem to be material. At leastj:there is nothing in this record which shows that it is material. Seibert bimselfsays in his patent that the plug may be located at any point in the discharge pipe, though he preters a point near the steamchest. :It also appears that, the Craig valve is situated some distance from thesteam-ehest.. Assuming that the cylinder, and the parts con· nec:ted therewith, is the objective point of the oil, it ismauiftlst that there is a point in all lubricators where the oil will be subject to the 'steamchest's fluctuations of pressure. Whether this point is a little further up in the discharge pipe to.wards the' sight-feed, or is near where that pipe enters the steam-chest, does not to be important; the essential thing is to regulate the quantity of oil which may be allowed to pass out of the reservoir. If the defendants' theory as to the functions of the equalizing pipe and the spindle valve in the Craig lubricator is wrong, I think the complainants should have shown this by rE-butting evidence; but, upon the record lUI submitted, I feel bound to hold that there is no infringement, and it follows that the·billmust be dismissed. ,
I,·'
THE PARTHIAN·
175
.::'BE .PARTmAN.
THE
FLORENCE.
(Dt8tr£ct Court, D. MassachmettB. Beptemooll 29, 1891.) CoLLISJOl'f-B'l'EAM AND
SAIL-FoG-BORNS. . As the steamer Parthiah wallproceedillg northward 50 miles oft Sandy Hook, in a thick fog. she heard prolonged blasts resembling those of a steam-whistle on her port bow. and, supposing them to be D;l,aile by a vessel under,steam, slowed down 1'0 half spef\d, ,and gave two blast!' on herl'l'histle, as a signal that slle would direct her 'cour.etoport and p8llllJ:On the starboard side. Receiving 'two short blasts in 1'e.· she her helmhlU"d to starboard, and as she was .falling off repeatedller signllol, winch was answered byasingle blast. She thereupon threw her wheel hard: to port, and reversed her enginp.& fuH speei astern,but short,ly afterwards }Vit\l a sailiog vessel. The sOU;l1-ds by the latter were ?reduced,byaD instruwel;lt blown by steam from aboUer caItied in the hold. HeW, that the use of such an instrument, instead of the .nsualatmosphedo. horn. rendered the ,salling solely in fault.
In AdtpkaIty·. Libelhy' the 0'Wtlersof the
Florence qamages for, IIi ·. ,Libel E. P.Carver, for the ' , '. ' L. T.' D.abney and F.. for the Parthian. ,
I"
'
. ,.
J. This,collision QCQuItred on the16thof July; 189Q, at 8 p'clock in the morning, fog. The place 'of waS 55 niiles S. E,by E. fromSl1ndyJ::];'Ook. The steamei! Parthian"Q$ wall of her usual trips frpm-Philll,to, _ llCQoOQer was.b9\lJld on J" Irmn Bangor to Philadelphia, with a cargo of T1)e,willd wa,sJight.froD;l the llorth-west. As the Parthian was proceeding on her course to the northward, enveloped in the fog, the men in charge heard on the port bow prolonged blasts, repeated at frequent intervals and coming nearer, resembling blasts made by a steam-whistle, which they took to be the fog-signals of a vessel under steam. The steamer was thereupon slowed down to half speed, and two short blastB were made with her whistle, as a signal that she wonld direct her course to port, and pass the approaching vessel on her starboard side. Receiving in reply two short blasts, and deeming this to be an acceptance of the proposal indicated by her signal, that the vessels should poss starboard to starboard, her wheel was put hard to starboard. As she was falling off to port under her starboard wheel her signal was repeated. and receiving back a single blast only, her wheel was thrown over hard to port, and her engines stopped and reversed full speed astern; but before she could be stopped the schooner Florence appeared out of the fog crossing the Parthian's bows from starboard to port. Nothing more could be done to prevent a collie:ion, and she struck the Florence on her port side just aft of her main rigging. The sounds which the men on the Parthian had mistaken for the fog-signals of a steamer proved to have come from NELaON,
Advertisement
