AD}CE V. J. 1.-. MaTT IJl,ON-WDRKS.
ADEE
v. J. L.
MOTT IRON-WORKS. Avril 21, 1891.)
(Oircuit Oourt, S. D. New York. PATE"''fS FOR IlilVElil'fIONS-IKFRI""qEMENT.
Letters patent No. 6,789, granted November 16, 1875, to James 'Foley, for an immovempnt in waste valves and overflows for basins and batl)s, which consists in bringing up the stand-pipe or outer pipe of the overflow through' the casing or slab contiguous to the basin or bath-tub, and securely attaching it, preferably by a screw connection, to a removable cap resting npon the outside of the, casing or slab, are not infring-ed by the device made, under letters patent No. 170,709, to William S. Carr, and No. 358,147, w John Demarest, by which the stand-pipe is provided with a screw flange resting upon the top of the siab, but has QQ. cap covering its upper end, as in the prior patent.
In Equity. Arthur v. Briesen, for plaintiff. Prancis lbrbes, for defendant. SHIPMAN, J. This is a bill in equity, which is founded upon the alIt?ged infringement of reissued letters patent Ko. 6,739, dated Kovember 16, 1875, to James Foley, for an improvement in waste valves and overflow,s for basins and baths. The original patent was dated July 21, 1874. The validity of this reissue and the patentability of the invention were adjudicated in the suit of Adee v. Perk, which was tried by Judge WAUACE. His opinion describes the invention so far as was necessary in lL cause in which infringement was admitted, and obviates the I1ecessityof an extended description here. Arlee v. Peck, 42 Fed. Rep. 497. The vital question in this case is that of infringement. The patentee said in the specification of the reissue that before his invention "valves had been made with a tubular stem, which formed an overflow for the water when the level of the same rises above the upper end of the tubular stem. In some instances this tube and valve have been introduced in the bath itself, and in other instances in a fixed tube at the side of the bath or basin. When employed hI the fixed tube adjacent to the basin it is difficult to remove the valve and its tubular stem, because the slab marble or wood usually covers the end of {he staand there is a hole through the same for a rod that operates the. valve and tubular stem. In consequence of the difficulty of retube and valve for cleaning, this waste valve and overflow are objectionable, and but little used.' My invention relates to an improvement tha.t is made for allowing the valve and overflow to be easily removed. For this purpose the valve and its tubular stem is continued up through tpe marhle or wooden slab or table cOlltig\.lOUS to the basin or bath, and provided, with a removable cap, thl'o]1gh which the stem to the passes." The stan<ling tupe pal?ses through the slab) and is furnished with a removable cap, preferably screwed to the tube. A rod, with a handle at the upper end, passes through this cap. its lowerelld being connected by a bail with the tubular stem, which forms the overflow pipe, within the standing tube. When the rod is raised and par-
of
78
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 46. The claim is
tiaIly revolved, it suspends the tubular stem and valve. as follows: .,:
stand-pipe,f, of the bath or basin overflow, passing through the slab or table, b, and receiving at its upper end the removable cap, 1, in combination with the overflow pipe, 0, valve, 1', and means for suspending the valve and oVerflow pipe from the cap, snbstantially as set forth."
Itthus appears from the specification, and it is also stated by Judge W ALi-ACE, that the improvement really made by Foley consisted "in bringing up the stand-pipe or outer pipe of the overflow through the casing or slab contiguous to the basin or bath-tub, and securely attachingit, preferably by a scre,v connection, to a removable cap, resting upon the outside of the casing or slab." Fastening a removable cap to the upper end of the stand-pipe upon the outside of the casing for the purpose of readily exposing the pipe and. conveniently removing the valve-stem and its parts for cleaning or repairs was the important part of the improvement. If the defendant's device, which is made under letters. patent 170,709, .to William S. Carr, [lnd No. 358,147, to John Demarest, assignor to the defendant, does not have the cap of the patent; there is no infringement. In 'this device the tubUlar valve-stem, which is the overflow pipe:, extends up to the handle by "'hich it is lifted. end, but its The stahd-pipe does not have a eap' which covers rilollth the slab is provided with a screw flange, which rests upon the slab. A nut around the stand-pipe clamps the 'under side of,t,hetslab.. The contention between' the parties is whether this flange is'the ,cap'of the Foley patent. It r,ests upon the outside of the slab, is removable, and helps to support :the stand-pipe to the slab, and is deemed by tre complainant to be directly within the', terms of the patellt, and to: be. the patented improvement. The cornplainant insists that it is imm,atenalwhetherit does or does not entirely cover the upper end of the pipe. In the Foley patent the rod which lifts tne stem and valve the contracted top of the capof the stanll-'pipe, and the stem of the overfrow pipe is gUided centrally by the cap, The valve-stem cannot be liftedo'ut 'until the caI> is removed. In the defendant's device the socalied' cap lis sitilply a flange around an OPElD mouth. The upper part of the overflow, pipe is enlarged, so that it loosl)ly fills the stand-pipe, and is lifted iqJfnediately out of it for the purpose of cleaning, without disturbing anyotljer part. The upper end of the stand-pipe' is not covered or capped'in any proper sense. The;difference is notmereIy in the size of the holes in. the. respective caps, 'but is a difference in the principle of cOllstrllCtion of the two wasti-valves. In the Foley valve the valve-stem is intentionally cOIHined the' cap, which must be removed when the be lifteCl out, wh'ile in the defendant's device the stand-pipe is made an open Dlottth,so that the valvestenl',cahbe instabtly'removed: 'There is no infringement, and the bill IlhouId bedistnlssed. ' .
.,
..'i
J
:
I
Ii ,j
i;,
;'
.TlIE
ISAAC ¥AY·. EI.ECTRICAL ARC LIGHT
79 CO,.
BRVSll ELECTR!C
Co.v.
NEW
AMERICAN
(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. April 14, 1891.) PA.TENTS FOR INVENTIONS-ELEOTRIC LAMPS-INFRINGEMENT.·
Letters 219,208, issued September 2, 1879, toGharles F. BrUsh for an improvement in electric lamps, are valid, and cover all forms of mechanism constructed to separate· two or more pairs or sets of carbQns dissimultaneously or successively, so that the light is established between the members .of but one pair Or set at a Following BrlLshElectric Co. v. Western El·ectric Light, etc., Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 511S, and Same v. Ft. Wayne Electric Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 284.
In Equity. H. A. Seymonr, for plaintiff. Homer A. Nelson, for defendant. SHIPMAN, J. This is a bill in equity to restrain the infringement of letters patent No. 219,20'8",rdated September 2,1879, to Charles F. Brush for an improvement in electric lamps. The defendant took no testimony, and did not appear at the hearing. The questions in the case seem to have been previously adjudicated, and tb be fully stated in the opinion of Judge GRESHAM in Brush Electric OJ. v. Ft. Wayne Electric Light Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 826; of Judge BROWN, in Sarne v. Western Electric Light, etc. , Co., 43 Fed. Rep. 533; and of Judge BI.ODGETT upon a motion for an injunction in Burne v. Ft. Wayne Electric Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 284. Let there be a decree for the complainant for an tnjunction and an accounting.
THE ISAAC
MAY.
(DIstrict Court, N. D. N(JUJ York. April 24, 1891.) 1. SALVAGE-AMOUNT.
2.
In Admiralty. George J. Sicard, for Lehigh Valley Transportation Company and James W. Todd, libelants. Josiah Cook, for Thomas "Yynne, David Gibbs, and others, libelants. Benjamin H. Willimns, for claimant.