WII,SON

:V.

v.

ANSONIA BRASS & COPPER CO.

681

WILSON

ANSONIA

BRAss &

COPPER

0&.

(Oircuit Oourt,S. D. New York. December 28,1891.>
1.

PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PATENTABILITY-LAMP-BURNER8.

a

Letters patent No. 816.422, issued April 21, 1885, to George H. Wilson, for ah im· provement in lamp.burBers, consisting of a projecting teeth at the top and bottom for holding the wIck and glvmg It a posItIve movement as desired, and having slots in the sides for admitting air to the interior for an al'gand burner, show. an essential and useful improvement over all other burners, and are therefore valid. A burner having a wick-carrier like that of the patent, except that tbe wick is held by stitches at tbe lower end, constitutes an infringement, as the stitches are merel1the mechanical equivalent of the teeth.
'"

SJ.ME....:.lIN'PRINGEM:ENT-EQUlVALENTS.

Suit by George H. Wilson against the Ansonia B.l'ass & CopperColIlpany'for infringement of a patent. Decree forcpmplainant. ,E. ff.,.B'Jdlard, [or orator. Edwin H. Brown, for defendant.
WHEELER, J. This suit is brought upon letters NO.,S,1,6,422, dated April 21,1885, aodgranted tothe orator for improvement in lamp-burners. The patented improvement consists principally in a wick-carrier, with inwardly projecting teeth at the top and bottom ends for, h<114j,ng the wick and giving it a positive movement as desired,and slots inthe sides for admitting air to the, interior. foran argaild burner. 'rhe are want of novelty and non-infringenient. The show styles of burners, sOqle having one thing, andotllersanother, Har tothe'plaintiff's, having a wick-carrierholding the firmlyateach end for D:lp,vingit up and down evenly all found, to properly adjust the flame,aridlllso admitting air to the interior, as his The between his apd all others is small, b,ut it seems to Q!'l e!lSentialan,d useful, and lJ!ltentable. The defen4ant's burner has a wick-carrier like tile plaintiff's all respects, EI;cept that the wick is held by stitches at end instead of by teeth. The appear to be an equivalent there of the teeth, (lnd the carrier appears to be an ,infringement. decree be entered for the orator.

;

(Circu1t Co'Urt,N. !1.1owa.lt;. D. January 7,11199.)
1. PATBNTS FOR lfl'lill: ()IL. " .. ,FOB StrPPLl'I:jiG,BTRBBT-LAMPS '

,-.the ,lampe with removable reservoirs of a nmnbergn>.ater tllan the lamps,and pro-

irst claim of letters patent No. 222 j 856; issued December 28,1879, ,to Henry 8. Belden, for a metbod of supplying '&treet-lamps with oil, contl:isting in providing

,rJJiing,. 'COnveyance, for transporting filled' res'ervoirs, and substituting' them for the emptied ones, is not infringed by a device for transportinglfilied reservoirs and SUbS,tituting ,t,hem,for tbe empt,ied, ones, w, I)ich Q06snotu88 case or rack for , :w,nyeylo.g "lUI re!!ervoirsdellQriQed:ln the J:lelden pawnt. .'.
,I" "

': feed.pipe, the patent being limited to the entire cOmbination, ilone 01 its
being new. .1 Fed. Rep. 48, affirmed·

., , ',......<.:.., -,. . _, - " .. :

The second claim of letters patent No. 986,2U.issued October 9, 1888; to Alfred L. Mack, for an oil reservoir having its bottom set in to form a fiange to fit over alld ,upon a adapted, for permanentc,onpectioq ,to,the pipe of a ,amp, proV'idlld wltha $orewl.oilp, anll 'all' and· feed : " ",; ':, "

. , "-,

"

·

. -

.

-I

review.· ' ' ' ," " ',. ' '(Jliar/iJJ R. MUler ahd ,Lake &:' Ha't'lrl1Yil;, for " 1I6'iidl!riKffl" Hurd. Daniel8 &:'Kiesel, for defendants.
:' :.'

r "

i

!

: ,The dbtammg,a. revIew of the concluSions.xe,ached on, the. orIgmal hearmg of this'caus,e,and. ,iihich are sliBwn in ,the in 41 Fed. Rep. As 'stated in that opiriion, the company is the owner'Qf the letters'patent 222,856, issued to Henry S. Belden, and No., 286,21 t, issued'to Alfred L. Mack,' company is charged ?lith the claim, of the Belden pat:nt, and thud danna of. the Mack Upon the bill of reVIew and' the' 89companyirlg evidence counsel'for complaihimthave very fully and ,.It'blyreargued the" questions considered. at tneo;l'iginal ,hearing, th,at as to. patents th:? heretofore gave JOo a , '. . . , So far as the Belden 'patent is con'cenled, all that is'showri in the evidence is that the defendant company uses detachable reservoirs, in number greater than the lamps in use, and conveys the same back and forth in a wooden box, with compartments so arranged as to keep the reservoirs in an upright position. Unless the Belden patent is to be construed to be broad enough to cover all means of utilizing the idea of having more reservoirs than lamps, so that a filled may be substituted for an empty reservoir, I do not see how it is possible to sustain the charge of infringement of the first claim of the Belden patent. The box used by defendant for the transportation of the reservoirs is not a copy or imitation of the rack described in the Belden patent, and in fact the argument of complainant in this particular really shows that the claim made is for the use of more than one reservoir for each lamp.

h'?*