848
'FEDERAL REPORTER.
or lengthening this string the tension of· the spring was increased or dimhiished, and '8. more or less rapid exposure was thus obtained. The complainant must be limited to the particular apparatus described and claimed. Others had revolved rotary shutters in photographic cameras by similar mechanism, and he is in no position to invoke protection from the doctrine of equivalents. His was but one in a series of improvements. Braggv. Fitch, 121 U. S. 478,7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 978; Snow v. Rail,. way 0:>., 121 U. S. 617,7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1343. Thus construed, the claims are not infringed. by "Complainant's Exhibit t Defendant's Shutter." This exhibit shows a spring rigidly attached at one end, the free end connecting directly with a cord, which winds on the hub-pulley. The pivot-arm, which is an important element of all the claims, is entirely omitted. So is the sliding spring, and the fixed rail. For the defendant's combination a patent-No. 377,554-wasgranted February 7, 1888, to M. Flammang. As to the shutter previously made by the defendant, and found in the "Complainant's Exhibit, Defendant's Camera," infringement is conceded. There should therefore be a decree for the complainant upon letters patent No. 369,818, for an injunction and an accounting, restricted, however, to the last-mentioned exhibit. As the complainant has been defeated upon letters patent No. 270,133, he is not entitled to costs.
FERNOLINE CHEMICAL
Co.
fl. CAROLINA
OIL &
CREOSOTE
«(Jircuit Court, B. D. North Oarolina. January 15,1889.) PATENTS FOR J?ENTINE. FOR DISTILLING
TuR-
In reissued lett'ers patent No. 10.689, to J. D. Stanly, for an apparatus for distilling turpentine. the claims are fora fire-box; an arch over it. and under th.e retort; a retort chamber above the arch; and spaces above and below the retort, connected at one end. The products of combustion pass from' the fire-box underneath the rear and of the arch; thence horizontally along the under side of the retort. to the front end, whence they ascend vertically at the side of the retort to a space above it; thence backward along the top of the retort to the chimney. In the apparatus constructed by defendant under letters patent No. 333.750, June 5, 1886, alonger retort is heated from opposite ends by two furnaces. each heating one-half. In the space between the arc1;l and retort, in each fnrnace, vertical partitions pass more than half way around the retort, terminating at alternate sides. 'The products of combustion escape at the side and rear end of the arch and the middle of the retort, the passages deflecting them upon the walls of the fUrnlltle, instead of upon the retort. They then ascend. and at the top of the chamber meet one of the partitions. and are made to descend to the heated arch, where another partition causes them again to ascend. the process being repeated until they escape at a chimney at the forward .end. Held, that the Stanly patent protectEi at most the manner of the products of combustion for equalizing the temperature, and is not inftJDged by defendant's apparatus.
In Equity. :Bill to restrain the infringment of a patent, and for an account.
FERNOLINE CHEMICAL CO. V. CAROLINA OIL &; CREOSOTE CO.
349
Master, for complainant.
Stickneyt!c Shepard, W. T. Dortch, Strong, Grey t!c Stamps, and R. B. MC-
S. F. Phillips. M. S. Hopkins, and Battle t!c Mordecai, for defendant.
SEYMOUR, J. This is a bill in equity, filed by the Fernoline Chemical Company, to restrain the infringement of a patent, and for an aecount. The letters patent under which plaintiff claims are reissued letters No. 10,689, granted to one James D. Stanly. The original patent bears date October 31, 1882, and is numbered 266,909. Reissue patent 10,689 is 'for an apparatus for distilling turpentine, and for the purification of the crude products of the distillation thereof. It relates to a process by which pine wood is placed in an oven or retort, subjected to heat. and the vapor thus caused to issue from the wood conveyed into recep· tacles. in which it is cundensed and distilled. The apparatus consists of a heating structure. a retolt for containing the wood, and the construction for condensation. The controversy is with respect to the heating strncture, and the means adopted to convey the heat to and distribute it about the surface of the retort. The defendant is engaged in the businesa of manufacturing oil from pine wood by distillation. Before the date of original patent, 266,909, Stanly had taken out two other patents for distilling turpentine and producing oil and other products from wood, numbered, respectively, 130.598, and 131,312, dated August 20 and September 10, 1872. On the 21st of February,1882, and therefore earlier than the issuing of plaintiff's patent, he had sold to defendant's assignors, ganson and Smith, the exclusive right to use said inventions (and all improvements that might be made thereon) in the state of North Carolina. The invention so purchased not proving, as defendant alleges, practically satisfactory, by reason of the furnaces failing to heat the retort evenly, by too great a consumption of fuel, and by burning the bottom· of theretQrt, Hanson and Smith devised sundry improvements, which were patented by letters numbered 333,750, granted June 5,1886. The apparMusnsed by defendant, and alleged by plaintiff to be an infringement on its patent, is constructed, as defendant claims, on the plan of the last-mentioned patent, which is itself an improvement on the patents which it holds under assignment from Stanly. The claims made by Stanly in the specification forming part of the reissued patent 10,689 are a fire-box; an arch located'over the fire-box and under the retort; a retort chambefabove the arch, in which is located the retort; and space!! above and below' the retort, separated for the greater length of the chamber, but connected at one end. The object of the arch over the fire-box, and of the separation of the spaces above and below the retort containing the pine wood, is to equalize, as far as may be, the heat applied to all parts of the retort. The products of combustion are kept from the retort by the arch, under whicH they pass to its rear beneath the arch, escaping from the latter at the rear end. Thence they pass horizontally along the under side ofthe retort, between the retort and the arch, to the front end, where they ascend, through vertical passages at the sides of the re.tort, into a space above the same. They then pass rearward, along th&
850
i ,':.
apparatus; that is to say, the heat passes backwards under the impinging 'lll'pon:tpe retort, thence \forward 'over the archand'.'und,erthe retort, thence backward over the retort to the chimney. The original Stanly patent! No;:l BO,598,-pneof the two the right to .use which was purchased by 'd,efemiant's accordjng,to thespepUication; an improvementin the process and apparatus wherebyspiri41 of tine a.ref.distilled, from. pine wood. It provides, AS dpes .plaintiff's pat:ent, a. process whereby pine woodis placed in a retort;subjected to heat, and its vapor conveyed into'receptacles,and 'condensed. The fire is placed, directly under the retorts; The apparatus now used by defendantpl10vides for an equalization of the heat applied to i:Jy means of fOllcingitto pass. under an arch, and through flues surrounding the retort. ' Before oonsideringwhatthe court deems the substantial difference between thE' mode in which the heat is applied to the 'J.'etort in the plaintiff's and the defendant's inventions, lwill state that. the, testimony shows that plaintiff's patent rests for its validity upon a very narrow margin of invention., Arritngingspaces around vessels ofVltrious forms for thE;l purpose of retarding and regulliting the process of heating such vessels, and the use of arches above, fires to protect I:ctorts from the action of flames, were both old in art at the time of the invention covered by plaintiff.'s patent. What it' is entitled to protection in, ifanything, is the manner in which thep:foduots of combustion are delayed in being carried around the retort; that is, its mode of equalizing the heat, and its combination of contrivances for effecting its In defendant's apparatus the fire-box is, as in plaintiff's, covered by an arch. The retort is longer than that used by plaintiff, and is heated retort from its end from opposite ends, by two furnaces, each to the middle., In: each furnace there is a space entirely around the retort between the outer surface and the surrounding masonry. In this spacethereare:vertical partitions passing alternately over and under the retort. Each· pattition passes a little more than half way around the re,tort, .aod tlieendsterminate at the side of the retort. ,These vertical partitions divide:the space around the I:etort into an indirect flue or pas-sage extending upwards and downwards, repeatedly, from the top to the bottoIr,lof the retort. At the rear end of each furnace.,.-that is, under the middle of the retort-the arches are provided with openings ing outward, into the cham ber which contains the retort. The arch extends continuousl)' to the rear wall. The openings through which the products of combustion escape into the ,chambers surrounding the retort are situated at the side and inner end of and deflect. them so that they do not directly impinge upon the retort, but are directed more immediately to the. side walls of the furnace. 'The ;reault of the mechanical arrangement described is that the products ofcombustionj after passingalong under the arch! and through the flues into the chambers surrounding the retort, and impinging upqn the side .walls ofthe apparatus, -immediately ascend to the upper part of the chamber. On reaching it,
top Of tie 'retort,. tOIthe ,oltithner,.Wbi<ihis"B.t',·tlilf Qaek end
. 'Mottss
v.
351'
being impelled' forward' by the 'draft, they meet a extending doWn from the robf' of 'the chamber; and are thtown 'down to the upper surface of the protecting arch, where they come in contact with a surface heated by the direct action Again impelled fQrward's, they, strike ranother p9:mtionj 'are thrown upwards, and then, upon reaching the ¥>p of the chamber, are litg!,\in diverted downwards, and again upwards, until they through cbiqmeyssituated at the forward ends of the apparatus. I do not plaGe any stress upon the fact that two fur. naces are used in defendant's and only one in plaintiff's apparatus; but for other reasons 1 cannot consider .the former as substantially the same structure Jis the latter. , The use of vertical, instead ofhorizontal, parti. tions has the of changing the method of heating the retort. The ip the case of the vertical partitions immediately surround the upper as well as the lower part of .the retort, while under thftStanlypatentthey pass under the entire length of the retort .before :reaching its upper Again, the heat in defendant's apparatus, after lilurrounding both the lower and upper part of the retort, is.twice thrown down against the lower hot arch, where its temperature may be renewed. Again,tb,e flames in defendant's furnace are diverted froIll' the retort lfljlen they first emerge from under the arch, instead of directly iJ;Dpillging upon: it, a fact '\thich tends to increase its durability. These are, it would seem, sufficient to relieve defendant from the, ch4rge upon the plaintiff's method of producing the re,sult at, anp The result itself! do not consider !!overed by either patent. , :I;baveJ.a.id no stress on the alleged tests, to which so much teetimony ¥J Defen(}ant's trial was ex parte. In ,that of plaintiff the facts tbat}lO damper the smoke-stack of defendant's apparatus, a.J)d used in it was 20 per cent. lighter than that used in plaintiff's deprive the tests of all title to The bill is " ,
MoRSS".
KNAPP
et JanUary 115. 1889.)
{Oi,.cUit (J01J/ft; D; Oonnect:icut.
PATENT8 FOR bVENTIONS-.....: .JNFRnrGEMENT-DRES8-'OlUlS.,
In the dev,ice letters patent No. 23l!,240, to Jqhn Hall. dated October 12. 1880. for an adjustable dress-form, the upper of two sedesof op", ip.Il!illecl braces , their inner ends to an adj usti'bl& qollar ..l1oll,d, are hinged to the re'spectlve ribs. The braces of the lower eerlesare hmged to a lower adjust" able collar, and, extending obliquely upward, are hinged to the ribs at the point of hinging of the upper series. The expansion of the form is effected .by: the l<?wer and 4s ,the opposinp; alltion of. the uppe;rillllr16S.)" ejalm 2· IS for the double and rests, in combinatdonwith,1.bie&tandard,and ribs. substantially for the purpose set forth." Held ," inbinged by a: fo.\'m having-a series of braciesextending obliquely dawnwa.rd on' t.hestlindaratothe:ribs to which they are, hinged. to frolJt