920
FEDERAL REPORTER.
ADAIR
v.
THAYER.
(Oircuit Oourt, 8. D. Ne:w York. March 29, 1881.) 1. RE-ISBUE No. 6,964-:-IMPROVEMENT IN CAUSE-NEW:c..y.,.DISCOVERED DEFENCE. TO RE-OPEN
Before a motion to re-open a cause, and admit a newly-discovered defence, after a final hearing, will be granted, it must be clear that such defence, if it had been made at the tinal hearing, would have }'ooneffectual. Buerk v. Imhauser, 10 O. G.. 907. De Florez v. Reynolds, 16 Blatchf. 408 . 'I'hepu,mping device described in English letters patent No. 11,473, granted Thomas Uraddock, December 3, 1846, for improvements in steam-engines, boilers, and macainery connected therewith, held, not sufficiently similar to complainl'nt's or defendant's· devices·to warrant the court to re-open the callSe.
In Equity. W:a:EELER, D. J. This cause has now, after final hearing and decree for an'injunction and an account for an infringement of a patent for a pump,-been heard upon a motion to re-open the case' and admit newly-discovered defences. The motion is founded upon English letters patent .No. 11,473, granted December 3, 1846, to Craddock, for improvements in steam-engines and boilers, and machinery connected therewith, including, among many other things, a pump. The pump there patented does not appear to be sufficiently like either the orator's patented pump or defendant's pump, adjudged to be an infringement, to warrant granting the motion, under the rule laid down in Buerk v. Imhauser, 10 O. G. 90'7, and De FlO1'ez v. Ray1Wlds, 16 Blatchf. 408. It is essentially a double-acting exhausting air-pump, for a lowpressure steam-engine, and not a lifting water pump, and is so described. Its inlet and all of its valves are at the top of its piston cylinder, and, as shown in one form by the drawings, the valves are beneath an open cistern, which is flooded with water that will prime the working parts when water is drawn, and through which the valves and piston are readily accessible for removing obstructions and making repairs, as
-See 4 FED.
REP.
441.
THAYER.:
991
those in the orator's and the defendant's pumps are. But this location of the inlet and the valves, operating as valves below the piston, is made practicable by having a long pas. sage from the chamber above these valves to the piston cylinder below the stroke of the piston, and opening into it, and is necessary in order to carty,out the idea of the inventor that the pump, when in use, should, as set forth in the patent, be "always filled with water at the bottom to a height a little way above the opening into the passage, So that the piston, in its descent, always dips into the Witter before it comes to the end of its stroke, and drives that water, with the air before it, up the passage, whence they are discharged through the port." The orator's and the defendant's pumps are lifting pumps, for raising water, and have their valvee operating as valves below the piston, practically-Io. cated there, with their inlets ope'ning upward to them from below in the usual way, and still have open water heads above the valves flooded with water, when they are working, that will prime the working parts, and through which. the valves and piston are likewise accessible for clearing 'trom obstructions and making repairs. The lower parts of the shells of these pumps are not whole, like that part of the shell of Craddock, so as to make them self·sealing, with water on the lower side of the piston, as his is, and they not be made so, and retain their compactness and efficiency as lifting water pumps. Neither could his be ch!tnged to .alift· ing pump for water from directly belOW, without taking away that feature of it as an air-pump. His patent would hardly suggest the orator's pump. The difference is so great that it is not at all clear that this patent, if it had been in evidence, would have led to any different result, but rather the contrary. So there appears to be no warrantable ground for the motion. Motion denied.
999
FEDERAL REPORTER. WISNER GRANT and others.
V;
(Oitrcuit V()W/'t, .N. D. New York. - , 1880.) 1.
Rlll-IssUE }fo. 8,475-HoRIlB HAT RAKES-ANTICIPATION-VALIDITY· .Re-issued letters patent No. 8,475, grantee November 5, 1878, to William H. Field, for horse hay rakes, held, anticipated by letters patent No. 7,813, granted Henry W. Sabin, December 3, 1850, improvement in horse rakes, and therefore invalid. CONSTRUCTION-RE-lsSUE-BROAD GENERAL CLAIM-CONSTRUCTION.
2.' ORIGINAL PA'l'ENT-SPECIFI<i
. i
Where the original patent. claimed a specific construction of rake heael, in combination with otller devices, in a horse hay rake, and it is clear that the office of the re-issue.is to secure the broad claim to the use of a rake head genfJ1'alEu, the patentee will be held to such claim; even though the result may be that the real invention will not be secured. Upon such. a construction of the re-issue, complainant's device being a horse hay rake, with its axle continuously rotated by gear wheels, a rocking head mounted on it, a lifting ratchet wheel attached revolving with it and arranged to engage with a pawl on the to rake head to dump the load, and a stop to release the head from the ratchet and reset the teeth, held, anticipated by a device in which the teeth are mounted separately upon a continuously revolving axle by eye bearings, which abut against each other and are raised taneously by means of a transverse bar bearing upon one end of the teeth.
L. HiU, for complainant.
O. M. Peck, for defendants. WALLAC'FJ, D. J. The complainant alleges the infringement by defendants of the first, second, and fourth claims of the re-issued letters patent granted to William. H. Field, November5,1878, for arn improvement in horse hay rakes. The controversy relates to that class of hay rakes in which the rake teeth are tilted, aind discharge the hay in windrows by the traction of the apparatus. The original patent was granted to Cyrus B. Holden, April 14, 1868. The first claim of the re-issue is as follows: "First, an oscillating rake head, moanted on rotating axle, and having bearings through which the ade rotates when the rake is advancing, substantially as described." The second claim is: "An oscillating rake head mounted