362

,J'EDERAJ,. Rn'ORTER

I

vol. 45.

per and coutel)ts of 162,183 were 'offered for the purpose of showing that McGill admitted, in 1874, that the fasteners in the boxes were public that he had full knowledge of the whole subject. The otperAile-wrappersand contentswe.re offered to show that McGill took patents, was a shrew<i patent lawyer, and his knowledge was imputt\bleto the defendant. For, the purposes offered, the defendant the adn1ission, 'of all tl16se papers; which objection was sustained,iW,d' all said papers were excluded for the purposes for which' they were offered; to which rtiling the plaintiff then and there duly excepted. An examipation of the testimony shows that, theretofore, the file-wfaPper '!tnd cqntents of 286,143 had been offered and admitted ,

i

HITCHCOCK':et al.

WANtER' LAMP

!,;

Go; 'et, al.

(CirCUit CoU'I't; N. D.Nfru,

,February

L PA'J'ENT8 ,po", ,,' , ; ,· , Letters, gratited to RObert 110,1880, for an , improvement-in meohlioieal lamp-shells, co'\tered a deVIce intended· to' protect the air.forcing IJI.IlCh,aJ';llsm,'Of force,"bl!'8t ll;UllPil ftom, dripp,ings"Of,Oil.', The S}leQitloation rocited that the oil reservoir was provided with a flat or slightly concave ,bottom, so that drops of oil couid not fitid thllil' war across it to drop Into the works of the air blast that a tube or thimble PfoJectedupward froQl h(;llow thli\oil reser· voir, lIo'that on dropping from the side of the reservoir would fall into the oavity between 'UU;tube alrd ,'.A. prior patent dejlcnbeda force·blast lamp with the bottom of which the air pa.ssage, and :was providedwitli aarip angle, ,b:iwhich,there ,was an annular cavityhfo,rmed by the projection of a 't'ti1Je intotlie'converging sidas olthe lamp-shell. T e drip angle formed tube, so,that it; oil into pa;vity. Held, No. 2M" a circle 916 was void want of inventIOn, , " ,, S, Sum-INFRdl'eEMBNT.' J,' " " ;,' , , ,As the specification and the prior patentllimit the claim'toa combination in whklh ,the oil reservoir,has .a flato.\' slightly concave bottom, is not infringed by a lamp whose oil reservoir hali not such a bottom. . ,

In Equity. , . 'Pollok&- Matui'o, for complainants. ,Gifford & Brown, for defendants.

';

,

'WALLACE, J . Infringement is alleged in this suit of letters patent No; 234,916, 'dated November 80, 1880, granted to Robe'rt Hitchcock for an improvement in ,rnechanical1amp-shells. 'The patentee states that the invention relates illore particularly to that class: of lamps which have air propelled upwards through them by mechanical' rileans,aI1d has for its object to protect the air-forcing mechanism ofsueh lamps frbmdrippings Moil, which frequently flow over the sides of·fheJoilteservoir. 'He ,also thitt....o.," " " '" tW'e&1i the outer

'''Heretofore it has 'been 'attempted; ttie'ffect this obj ebt1:1y introducing beshell' of:the"larnp:and' thllOU reservoir a drip-cup, by which the 'overtlo.w of oil might be;intercepted ,andpreverited from reaching the b\1t this co,mplicates the constructiono,f

HITCHCOCIr V.WANZER LAMP

cO.

lamp-shells, increasing ,their cost. This improvemeht dispensElsentirely: witlI, the drip-cup, thereby simplifying the conlltruction of such and at same time insures the perfect protec,tion Qf theair·blast or blower." The general description of the improvement in the specification is as follows:; "The oil reservoir, otherwise of ordinary suitable construction, is provided with a bottom flat, or, preferably, slightly concaved 011 its exterior. 1Iothat if any drops of oil should flow from the. wiokidown the sides of said reservoir they could not find their way acr08S its bottom into posItion to drop into the works of the air-blast below. At the narrowl\r part of the lamp-shell. just below the oil reserVoir, is a tube or thimble, secured oil-tight to the sides of the shell; and projecting upwards towards the reservoir, but leaving' sumcient it and the reservoir for the passage of the CUITl.'nt of air. This space tube is in diaml.'ter less that that,of the concaved bottom of the oil reservoir, cOllsequen;tly the overflow of oil from the reservoir, not being able to cross the bottom, \Vould, when accumulated in sufficient quantity, fall fromlhesides of the resl'noir onto theshl.'JI, and its further downward progress wOllldbe arrested on'reaching the tube 01" thimble,f and louge in the cavIty formed in. '. between the tube and shell." The as follows: "(I) In aforce-blastJa)np, the cClm1;llnation of the oil resl'rvoir, formed, as indicated, at the bottom, so that drops of oil cannot dow a<:ross it, and the cavity said reservoir, and surrounding shell provided with an for the purposes .setforth. the passage of the air·blast, (2) In a force-:blast lamp. thecofllbination, with the reservoir having a flat or slightly concaVE! bottom, oia tilue:or thimble secured to the lamp-shell' hurnediately below said rt'servoir, the space between said lube and reservoir being left elltlrely free, substantially as described." In the lamps which the defendants manUfacture, and which are alleged to infringe the patent, the oil rEservoir is spherically shaped at the bottom, and beneath itdmd attached to it, is 8. sballow.drip-cup of a diameter larger' than the tube for the air passage, provided with an annular edge, which, in <:8se the d,rip-cuIJ overflows, prevents,the oil drops from flowing aCfoss its bottom; and directs them into the annular cavity. The bottom of this drip-cup is neither flat nor concave, but is slightly convex·. The p,riqr to Hitchcock, No. 142,103, describes a force-blast lampin which there is an oil reservoir, the bottomof which overhangs the air passage, and is provided ,,;ith a drip ailgle, and in which there is an annular cavity, formed by the projection of a tube into the converging giues of tlJe lamp-shell, which tupe isthe air passage betlY.een the, blast mechanism and the reserv()lr. In this 'lamp the drip angle i's8nnular, forming acitcle above and somewhat larger than the tube, so that oil dripping from the reservoirwill Le defleqted by the drip angle, and fall intoUie ca"ity-·. The Illnlp also 11 central extending through the reservoir to SUPPlY the inner side of the wick which encircles the tube, located directly ab'ove the ail' passage, and also a drip-cup, located between the reservoir. and the air passage,., to catch any drops'ofoil that might '6therwise:fa]t'frdm theceritral tube into the passage. In:the lamp of.the:patent in suit\, as inimost onne lamps used,in burning, kerosene, the, central 'isunnecessa:ry, nndis dis-

has

864

:FEDERAL REPORTER.

vol. 45.

pensedwitll; and when dispensed with it would be obvious, upon inspecting the lamp of the earlier patent, that the drip-cup could be also dispensed with, and would, if retained, be a wholly useless device. The improyement of the present patent relates wholly to the organization in a force-blast lamp of the two parts, the oil reservoir and the cavity below itz in such correspondence that the oil droppings from the reservoir will. fall into the cavity. It is effected by changing the form of the bottom of the reservoir of the lamp of the earlier patent. The only change necessary was to omit the opening for the central air-tube and omit the drip-cup; but the patentee, besides doing this, altered the shape ofthe bottom, so that it should be flat, or, preferably, slightly concave, -a change which did not affect the efficiency or the office of the drop a,ngle in the least. In view of the lamp of the earlier patent, it would seem to be clear that the patent in suit is void for want of invention. The claims of the patent are limited by the language of the specification, and alsO. in view of prior patent No. 142,103, toa cOI;llbination, ih which the oil reservoir has a oottom which is flat or slightly concave. The reservoir of the defendant's lamp does not have such a bottom. The drip-cup attachment cannot be considered as an equivalent for the fiat or convex reservoir bottom of the patent, not only because it has not a flat or convex bottom, but also because, . is expressly stated in the specification, ,the invllntion patented dispenslls with.a drip-cup. The bill is dismissed, because the patent is destitute of patentable novelty, and because the defendants do not infringe. .

KOEGEL SLITTER CO'. t1. EAGLE PAPER CO.

(OfIreuit Oourt, S. D. OMo, W. D. February 21,1891.)
P."lINTS FOR INVENTIONS-PAl'EB-BLITTER5-INFRINGEIIIENT.

.

. The first olaim of letters patent No. 8\12,262, issued November 6, 1888, to Osoar F. Greenleaf, for improvement in paper-slitting maohines, oonsisting of a revolvinll sbaft having a series of rotary outters adjustably mounted thereon, a oylindrical bar rigidly supported. above said shaft, series of hangers depending from said , 'bar, eaoh of saId hangers being oomposed of a strap adjustably seoured upon the bar and a spring-plate adjulltably seoured to the strap, and a series of rotary outters journaled upon said plates, is not infringed by a device having no spring-plate!!, and whose upper outters are journaled in rigid, fork-sbaped hangers, eaoh having a oylindrioal shank, by whioh it is .held in a olamping soo,ket in a two-part collar, , whioh olamped upon the rigid shaft, from whioh the l/opper outters depend.

"In Equity. Bill tOl'estrain in*ingement of patent· .Arthur Stem, for complainant. . ", ;Parkimon &: ParkimQ'fl,. for defendant.
,

J. The patent in suitis;No. 392,262, dated November 6,1888, and was granted to OscaI: E.Greenleaf, assignee of William C. Edwards, for improvement in paper-slitting machines. It was subsequently trans.SA(JE,