ACTIEBOLAGET SEPARATOR tl. SHARPLESS.
87
articles are first brought "under the spraying device;" and, after being sprayed by the. solution, are then brought "under the perforated drum." to be salted. To hold, then, that. the words "spraying and salting devices" mean the "spraying device" alone, to the exclusion of the salting device, would be to violate every recognized canon of construction applicable to the subject. The foregoing views being decisive of the case, I do not deem it necessary to consider other matters of defense which counsel have discussed. Let a decree be drawn dismissing the bill, with costs.
ACTIEBOLAGET SEPARATOR
eta!.
fl. SHARPLESS.1
(Oiroutt Oourt, E. D. PennBtlt1lanta. December 80, 1891.) L PATENTSl!'OR INVENTIONS-ExTENT.Ol!' CLAIMS.
2. SAMB.....iINPRINGIIMIINT.
Bill in equity by the Actiebolaget Separator and the De Laval Separator Company against Phillip M. Sharpless to enjoin the infringement of letters patent No. 298,314; for improvement in centrifugal creamers. Bill dismissed. J08.C;Prciley, for complainants. Geo. J. Harding and Goo. 1Iarding, for respondent. ACHESoN,;Circuit Judge. The ,bill of complaint charges the defendaI).t with infringement of letters patent 293,314, granted February 12, 18&4, to Gustav De Laval, for an improvement in centrifugal creamers. The invention relates to a class of machines well known ar,td in use for the separation of compound fluids,and more particularly used for creaming milk, and delivering the cream and the separately, by the agency of centrifugal force. The ordinary creaming machine consists of a revolving globular metallic vessel, into which the new milk is fed, mounted upon a vertical shaft, and rotated by suitable mechani81l1 with great rapidity, and with such effect that a separation of the cream from the skim-milk takes place,. the latter by reaSon of its greater specific gravity being thrown outwardly against the 1 Reported
by Mark WilKS Collet, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
88
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 50.
walls oftbevessel, and' assuming an upright hollow cylindrical form, 'while tbe cream is collected in the center of rotation standing upright in a zone or belt, so that the two can be discharged at different levels into separate annular receiving-pans suitably arranged and supported on a fixed casing. Several prior patents illustrative of the state of the art are in evidence. The earliest of these is an English patent to De Laval, dated November 4, 1878, which discloses an apparatus having all the features above mentioned, and in which the cream is discharged byoverflowing the top edge of the open neck of the cylindrical rotating chamber. The next is an English patent to Alexander dated December 24, 1879, showing a machine having the same general characteristics, the cream being forced over the outwardly curved lip formed around the edge of of druw. The United, States patent No. the open 249,731, dated November 15, 1881, to De Laval, discloses an apparatus of the like,general character, but in, which the cream is delivered into its annular receiver through a hole pierced through the wall of the neck chamber. The United States patent No. 281,916, dated of the July 24, 1883, to NeHaon, sbows a centrifugal creamer of the same general type" 'and, i9 which the. cream is discharged through a discharge port or ,nll)le,formed in the wall of the upwardly projecting tubular extension ortieck of the centrifugal vessel. The declared object, as expressed in the patent, of the invention involved in the present suit, is "to prevent the clogging by impurities of the orifice through which the cream is delivered from the rotating vessel;" and it consists in a discharge orifice or notch in the upper edge of the upwardly projecting open throat of the rotary vessel. The specification states: "In the upper edge of the t:hroat, c', is formed a delivery notch ororifice,j. for cream 'which passasthence into the vessel or receiver, D', from whence it is delivered by a spout, k.: It is advantageous to have the delivery orifice for cream thus formed, because, if any impurities approach it, they will rise and be thrown over the upper edge of the throat, c', hence t,he orifice will not be liable to be clogged, as is the case where the orifice is formed bya fine hole or . boring in the usual way." , The patentdrawingahows the upper edge of the throat as having an inwardly projecting and ,overhanging rim, which somewhat contracts the top of the mouth, and the delivery notch or orifice, j, as a horizontal cut or slot of ltn even depth, (somewhat less than the thickness of the overhanging rim,) and with rectangular sides, extending across the top edge of the throat, and passing, not only through the rim, but also entirely through the;l1pright wall of the neck. Referring to the delivery notch or orifice, j, 'the plaintiff's expert testifies: "And the peculiarity of this upper discharge orifice is that, instead of conSisting oia hole made through the wall, it is open at its upper side, so that any solid impurities which may be carried with the cream to the inner en· trance or mouth of this discharge orifice will be shoved upwards by the move· ment of the cream, and will pass over the top of the vessel without clogging the orifice. "
ACTIEBO!.AGET SEPARATOR t1. 8BA.RPLESS.
89
The distinguishing feature, then, between the old discharge orifice, by a· hole· through the neck of the rotating vessel, and the orifice, j, of the patent, is that the latter is open lengthwise at the top; but, like the old construction, orifice, j, is a channelformed in and through the wall, affording a lateral escape for the cream below the horizontal edge of the mouth of the vessel. In further explanation of how the open-top notch obviates the obstruction by solid matter at the mouth of the discharge orifice, the same expert states: "The flow of cream would carry the matter to the mouth of the notch, and would shove it upwards; and, as the matters accumulated from beneath, .those first arriVing at the notch would be forced upward by the accumulation beneath them until these would pass over the rim of the cream notch, the cream continuing to pass through the notch as before."
The patent contains the following disclaimer: "I am aware that it is not new to construct a rotary vessel for a fluid separator, with an upwardly projecting throat, open at the top, and having in its side and below its upper edge a hole for the delivery of a fluid. In this vessel there is no discharge orific consisting of a notch in the upper edge of the throat, and I do not claim such a vessel as included in my invention."
The first claim of the patent, which is the one alleged to be infringed by the defendant, is as follows: "(1) A. rotary vessel, C, for a fluid separator, provided with an upwardly projecting throat, C', open at the top, and having a discharge orifice or notch, j, in its upper edge, substantially as and for the purpose described."
From the foregoing recitals these deductions are clearly to be made: First, the invention relates exdusively to the "discharge orific or notch, j," everything else in the plaintiffs' apparatus with which we have here to do being old; second, the purpose of the invention is to prevent clogging, an evil incident to a separator provided with a fine side hole or boring for the escape of the cream; third, the patent in suit contemplates and provides for· the discharge of the cream through the side of the neck of the rotating vessel at a level below its upper horizontal edge. Now, turning to the defendant's separator, we find that his cream discharge consists of a curved depression, or cut of half-moon shape, made in the inner. face of the inwardly overhanging rim of the mouth of the rotary vessel, and leads upwardly, avoiding the upright wall of the neck; so that the cream is thrown outward above and over the level edge of the neck. In a word, the defendant's machine is a top-discharge separator, differing from those described in the English patents referred to, in that the cream discharge is confined to one particular point, namely, that part of the circumference of the mouth of the centrifugal vessel which is enlarged by the vertical cut or concavity, and is thus removed further from the center of rotation than the rest of the periphery of the mouth. The discharge of cream is thus concentrated because the con<laved part to greater centrifugal force than the otherportion of the top orifice or mouth of the vessel. Manifestly the top cream discharge was never subject to the clogging for which the patent in suit
,nDJl:RAL RJI:POBTER,
'WUiiiltended to furbhb remedy. .' TheinventioD r inquestioD WIlS for side-discharge SePal'tl:t0r, and undoubtedly it was an improvement to 'such centrifugal creaJibers, although the evidenoeshows that it did not entirely remove thedUticulty,luiJtbecream slot or notch, j,sometiIile8 beComes stoppedbyeJl!Uaneou8 Iilatter. But this can never happen in defendant's separator. 'As to who ig entitled I to the credit of originally devising the vertical 01lt or depression inthetnouth onhe rotary vesseLforthe top discharge of the cream we need not here inquire. It is sufficient to say that, in ' iview:of the prior state of the ,art,: the obvious and declared purpose of ,eItibQdiediin the first 'claim of tbepatent in SUit, and the specification it is so to construe 'that Claim it, tbe top <ireaindisch,arge orifice 9f the defendant's machine. Let a decree be drawn diSmissfug the bill. with costa. '8
a'
,
(Olircuit court, E. D. penmywanfa.
l899.) , "
,10, ,
Claim 1 of patent No; 860;036, for methodot girder raU., ClOIl· · in rolling down the' metal forming the side tram iii rolls provided with J>asses, in one or more ot which that portion of metal forming. the offset or head of the rail is subjected to elongating action, and that portion only forming ita side Vllm is ....to laci.ng or dum ..m.,y acti.O.n, does. not involve p.atentable iD .· ventioD since It was O.40t.to roll girder ralls with a dummy action on both the head .ide ana the tram slde,and it was old in other torms of rail. to turn the whole lateral. flow of .Jnetal to tlle tl'lUD side, aDd the chanj{es nllCe88ary to accomplish . result .in the rolls used for 'rollin&, girder rails were obvious to a skilled mechaDio. I.S.urB-LJJOTATJONS 01' Cr..AIH. Claim 1 of patent No. 860,036, if valid. is llmited to a procesa in which all the rolla described in .thespecification are employed, and in the sPeciflo form ,hown and deacrlbed, and is not infringed by a process of rolling in which the rolling of the tail. prior to their insertion· Into the dummy pass it performed by rolla of · subatan· t1allv di1rerent oonstruction. , . i, i
P,ATBN'I1! 1'0&
R.ln.a-.-INVENTJON.
d.l8p. .
InEquity. ...Suit by the . 1ohnson 'Company to enjoin the TIdewater Steel-Workstrominfringing letters patent No. 360,036, for method of and tolls rolling side-bearing girder rails, granted to Arthur J. Moxham, March 29, 1887. Bill dismissed. Gwrge J. Harding and GeOrge Harding, for complainant. William A.Redding. fot tespondent. ACHESON, Circuit Judge. The bill charges the defendant with the infringement of'.letters patent No. 360,036, dated March 29, 1887, for a "method· of and 'rolls for rolling side-bearing girder rails," granted to Arthur J. Moxhatn, and by him assigned to the plaintiff. This form of rails is used principally for street railways, andcollsists of an offset, upon which the wheel ofthe car runs; a side tram, at a lower level, and
, lRep01'Coed 1:17
Wilka Collet, Esq., of the Philadelphia bal'.
