"868

·

94 .FEDElUL ltEPORTER.

these parts are not includediD;,claJ.ms 1 and 2, and are expressly added in claim 3, which is not; alleged to have been infringed. The motion made by c6unlel.for the complainants to suppress a portion of the deposition of (21lal"ence E. Bement, taken on June 23, 1898, and certain to .in be allowed. The shoala,have completed hIS eVIdence WIth respect to the state of the art before the taking of complainants' testimony in rebuttaJ. He had no right to introduce additional testimony and exhibits, even for the sole purpose of narrowing the claims, after the evidence of the complainants had all been taken, and their fully examined. to the prior art as it had then been made to appear. A number of patents were introduced in this irregular manner, and the only witness called to explain them was Clarence E·.Bement, who did not do so in lilufficient detail to aqequately support tile opinions ,which he expressed. Yet, being reluCtant to disregard any matter which nCht possibly be persuasive, I have, with such aid as could be derived from Mr. Bement's testimony and the arguments of counsel, examined these patents,but cannot find that, if offered in due season, they would have changed the conclusion which I have reached. Decree for cOmplainants. '.
WESTINGHOUSE ELEOTRIO & MANUFACTURING CO. v. CATSKILL ILLUMINATING & POWER CO. ";;

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. May 17, 1899.)
I;,

PATENTS-VALIDITY-ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSlON ().F POWER.

The Tesla patent, Nq; 511,559, for certain new and useful Improvements of power," is not void on Its face, as covering In "electrical merely a mode of opera.tlon involving only'the function of certain machines but is for a new method of producing llJ1" .electrical result, or which method Is carried out by the use of apparatus.. .

This was a suitin equity by the Westinghouse Electric & Manufac· turing Company against the Catskill llluminating & Power Company for alleged infringement of certain patents. The bill was demurred to by defendant, in so far as it was based upon letters patent No. 511,559, issued December 26, 1893, to Nikola Tesla for certain new and useful improvements in the "electrical transmission of power"; the ground of the demurrer being that the patent, on its face, is fora mode of operation involving only the function of certain machines or apparatus,and therefore covering a process not patentable under the law. The patent, excepting the formal parts, was in full as follows:
"In certain patents. heretofore granted; .I have shown and described a sysin which each motor contained two or more Indepen4ent energizing. circuit!!. through whicb were caused to pass . alternating. ¢Uf!.'tints, having in ,eachclrcuit such a dlf!erence of phase that by their combined or resultant action they produced a rotary progression of ·the poles or'polnts maximum magnetic effect of the motor, and thereby maintained the rotation of its movable element. In the system referred to and described in said patents, the production or generation of the alternating currents, upon combined or resultant action of which the operation of the

tem ofelecti'.fcali>ower transmission,

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & :MFG. CO. V. CATSKILL ILLUM. & POWER

co.

system depends, is effected by the employment of an alternating current generator with independent induced circuits, which, by reason of the winding or other construction of the generator, produced currents differing in phase, and these currents were conveyed directly from "'the:gene"'ator to the corresponding motor coils by independent lines or circuits. I have, however, discovered another method of operating these motors, which dispenses with one of the line circuits, and enables me to run the motors by means of alternating currents from a single original source. Broadly stated, this invention consists in passing alternating currents, obtained from one original source, through both of the energizing circuits of the motor, and retarding the phases of the eurrent in one circuit to a greater 01' less extent than in the other. The distribution of current between the two motor circuits may be effected by induction or by derivation. In other words, I may pass the alternating current from the source through one' energizing circuit, and induce by such current a second current in the other energizing cirCUit; or, on the other hand, I may connect up the two energizing circuits of the motor in derivation or multiple arc with the main circuit from the source. In either event, I make due provision for maintaining a difference of phase between the currents in the two circuits or branches. In carrying out my invention I have used various means for securing this result. For example, when I induce a current in one of the circuits from the current flowing in the other, I employ a form of converter, or bring the two circuits into such inductive relations' as will produce the necessary difference of phase; or, when I obtain the two energizing currents by derivation, I make the two circuits of different degrees of self-induction by inserting a resistance or a self-induction coil in one of said circuits, or I combine these devices in different ways, as I shall more specifically describe hereinafter. The accompanying drawings, to which I now refer in further illustration of my invention, are a series of diagrams illustrating, not the Spl'cllic construction of the particular devices which I mayor may not have used, but, rather, the electrical connections and relations to be adopted- in carrying out the present system by means of devices which are now well known. "Figure 1 is a diagram illustrating the method of operating the motors by inducing one of the energizing currents by the other. Fig. 2 is a similar diagram of the method of operating the motors where the two energizing currents are obtained by derivation from a single sonrce. Fig 3 is a modified application of this principle. Refel'l'ing to' Fig. 1, let A represent the source of alternating currents which are to be utilized in operating the motor 01' motors. It will be understood that, considered as a source of current, it may be either a primary or secondary generator. B, B, designate the conductors of the circuit, which convey the alternating currents to one 01' more motors. The motor has two energizing circuits, or sets of coils, C, D. One of these circuits, as C, is connected directly with the circuit, B. The other set of coils, as D, is connected up in the secondary circuit of an electrical transformer or induction coil, T. The primary coil, P, of this transformer, is included in the circuit, B. The alternations of current in the circuit, B, tend to establish, in their passage through the coils, C, a polarity at right angles to that set up by the coils, D, and, if the currents in the two sets of coils accorded in their phases, no rotary effect would be produced. But the secondary current developed in the coil, p', of the transformer, will lag behind that in the primary, which lag or retardation may be increased, as I have shown in anotber application, to a sufficient extent to practically ohtain the same result as though two hidependent alternating currents were used to energize the motor. In Fig. 2 the two energizing circuits of the motor are shown connected in multiple arc to the circuit, B, B, and in one of these circuitscis a resistance, R. Assuming the two motor circuits to ha ve the same self-induction and resistance, no rotary effect will be produced by the passage through them of an alternating current from the source, A. But if one of the motor circuits, as C, be varied or modified by the introduction of a dead resistance, R, the self-induction of that circuit or branch is reduced, and the phases of current. therein retarded to a correspondingly less extent. The relative degrees of retardation of the phases of the current in the two motor circuits, with respect to those of the unretarded current in the circuit, B, thus produced, will set up a rotation of the motor, which may be practically utilized for many purposes. In Fig. 3, the

810
:;.IL

j

}Ld

il

'Jl)

If·

,1he similar tp"that shown "hi Fig.' 2; except that a seifin,to bxanch 9renexgizing circuit of ,the indl1ctior( coil, !\S S, is motor. , 'l'he efj'ect of th'1lS J.ilcreasi,r;lg:tlle self:inductioll in: one of the circuits is to retard tl;l.e pl;1ases of the thereill'tp greater extent than in tpe other cIrcuit, an,d in this waYj to secure the necessary difference in phase bet'ween currents tp produce,:the rotation, of the motor. "fn herewith, I and described aplOng which tpay J;!e the inother motor, clrcUlt, or the use troductIOn o.f>a of a resistance itlone,circUit allo, a coil in the other. In the above' Jhave:, 'll).&:inly to, motors with two energi,zing cirapplies equally to those irr,which cuits, ,butlt iil;eY,lderit tliat sucli adaptation, of, the sarne being there, are more than two a matter 'Yen u1J.qerst0(11).:it those ,sil:i1W4.!n the art I I. do not Claim in tllis application the specific deVices me In carrying out, the invention, What I clatm herein Is: having mUde these the (1) . The 'method of l)Perafiilg, rnO'torll!iaving in,dependent energizing circuits, as herein forth, 'pll;sslng alternll:tigg: currents through both of the said circuits, ilnd retarding the phases of the current in one circuit to a

a

LAFOURCHE PACKET CO. V. HENDEHSON.

871

greater or less extent than in the other. (2) The method of operating motors having independent energizing circuits, as herein set forth, which consists in directing an alternating current from a single through both circuits of the motor, and varying or modifying the relative resistance or self-induction of the motor circuits, and thereby producing in the currents differences of phase, as set forth."

Thos. B. Kerr, for complainant. Seward Davis, for defendant. SHIPMAN, Circuit Judge. The bill of complaint, so far forth as it relates to letters patent No. 511,559 is demurred to upon the ground that the patent is for a mode of operation which involves only the function of certain machines or apparatus, and is therefore, upon its face, for a process which is not patentable under the law. The patent is not for a function, but is for a new method of producing an electrical result, and the method is carried out or produced by the use of apparatus. The Telephone Cases, 126 U. 8.531, 8 Sup. Ct. 778. The demurrer is overruled, with costs.

LAFO"GRCHE PACKET CO. v. HEXDERSON. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 1'0.810.
1.

2.

ApPEALS IN ADMJRALTy-AsSIGNMEl'I'l'S OJ" ERROR.

:May 23, 1899,)

,

An assignment "that the court erred in holding that libelant was entitled t'.> any compensation for the injuries received" by him is too general.
It seems that, under the general admiralty practice, a Seaman injured through the use of defective appliances furnished by the owners of the ship may proceed against the ship for damages.

SHIPPING-INJURIES TO SEA}lEN-LIABILITY OF SUII'.

3.

SAME-NEGLIGENCE-DEFECTIVE Apl'I,IANCES.

Where a skid used to stow barrels the hold was brol,en on a prior voyage, to the kno,vledge of the ship's officers, so that, through the sagging of one side of it, a bolt worked up and caught a barrel being sent dowP., and threw it off and against a seaman engaged in tp.e work, the ship was liable for the injuries intlicted.

A seaman does not assume the risk involved in the use, under 'orders, of patently defective appliances furnished him ,br the master. o. SAME-DAMAGFJs-ExCESSIVENESS. 'Vhere both bones of the leg of a seaman were broken through negligence, and after the injury he was grossly neglected by the officers of the ship, and the injury was permanent and greatly damaged him in his earning capacity, <Iamages of $2,000 were 'not excessive.

4.

'SAME-ASSUMPTION OF HISK.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
On or, about :VIareh 8, 1898, 'William Henderson, appellee, was shipped at Xew Orleans, La., as a seaman in the service of the steamboat Lafourche, for a to Thibodaux, La., in Bayou Lafourche, and return to New Oi'leans, at the wages of $80 per month and found. The boat made the outward trip with libelant in the service thereof. On the return trip,and ,yhile said vessel wa,; lying at a plantation on Bayou Lafourche, the said Henderson, with others of the crew, was duly ordered to go into the hold or hull of said steamboat to aid and assist in storing' carge. Accordinglr he proceeded to the place or part