8»17 make application for a patent,andstated that the applicationhad been to by him on the B.ame day, May 12, 1887. The description and claim in said application was broac! enough to cover the application of the process to the manufacture both of waste-traps and of water-closet pipes. Reciting that complainants were desirous ofacquirjng [his] entire interest in' said invention and the letters patent .there(orwhen granted," he assigns to them all "right in and· to the said inventiop, and, any letters patent that may be granted therefor." Four days later (May 16, 1887) the application was filed, and the patent issued July 31, 1888. The other patent, which describes (as to this claim) the same invention, was applied for by defendant, January 3, 1887, and ,issued to, him, October 4,1887. To allow defendant, in view of the plain lanIDtage of. his to shelter himself behind. a patent which vitill.tes the alleged invention that he assigned to the ants, would be unfair, and' a defense not sanctioned by the' authorities. Adee v. T,hornas. ante, 342. Mllchtestimony was introduced as to prior transactions between the no application 'to reform the assignments was made, by crossbill or otherwise, and that instrument will therefore be taken as'determining the legal relations of the parties. Decree for complainants.
ADEE
et al· ..,. TIIOHAll.
(OirCUttt Oourt, E. D. New Yorlc. February 17,189O.)
In Equity:. BID for injunction. :Brie8en&Knauth, for complainante. .JIron & 006, for defendant. UOO!llBI!l,J.. This is a suit to restrain tbe infringement of letters patent No. 890,821, beingf9r; article of manufacture produced by tile process de80rlbed in tbe patent 8ued uPQnin Allee v. Thomas. ante, 846, (decided to-day.) Tbefacta and oircum.tances are tbe same in tbis case, as in that, and the conclUsion reached .. the same. Decll'eI for complainant.
, SARGENT f1. BARRY
et aZ.
(OireuA.t Oourt, S. D. IIYWa. E. D. February 21, 1890.) PJ.TBNTB POR
The tbird olaimof letters patent N:o.199,582, for an improvElmentin waterolosets. issued January 22, 1878. desoribes an enlargement of. the drain or waste pipe, 01' terminal ·of tbe traps, so as to form a obamber with an air-vent. and provides for.a disoharge for tbe downward or eduotion limb oUhe traps nearly on a level with tbe bottom of the trap and its seal, so that a column of water of 8uftloient length to overbalance tbe seal cannot aooumulate in the downward opening limb of t,b.e trap, and, no, action oan occur... Defendants manufaotured a tr:ap in .wbiob, at tbe upPer bend of tbe B-shaped trap tbey placed an air-pipe,. for the purJlO86 of securing &' of air on the upper bend of tbe aiphoa. thus preyer
POR WATlIlR-CLOSETB.
848
FEDERAL REPoItTlm,vol.
41.
lIfpllQrilcactiQn when the water in the pipe overbalanced that in the trap. The,insertion of this air-pipe caused a slight enlargement of the upper bend of the S:sbaped pipe. Held, that defendants' trap was not an infringelllent of plaintiff's patent. ' .'
In Equity. Bill to restrain infring;El,ment of patent. This is an action in equity, brought by James Sargent against Nicholas Barry. and others, to restrain defendants from infringing letters patent No. 199;582, for an improvement in traps for water-closets. Banning '& Banning & Payson, for complainant. F. H. Ale:tander and Jamea H. Pierce, for defendants. SHIRAS, J;. On the22d of January; 1878, letters patent No. 199,582 were issued tpcj)mplainantfor impfovemimt in traps for water-closets," etc. 111: the specifications the purpose ofthe invention is described as follows: " "My inventiot;i" relates to that class of drain-trapll known 8S the'siphon trap' or · wat,er seal;' and itsobject is to prevent the water from beiag dra wn from the seal by siphonic action, as is now frequently the case when the pipe is fll!shed, and the seal,beeomes overbalanced by water closely filling the trap and below or beyond it for a distance greater than the length of the intermediate limb, or the seal, of said trap. 'When this occurs, the water of the seal is so reduced below its effective level as to allow a free passage of air through the trap. and poisonous gases and fonl air rising from the sewers are permitted to escape into the house through the traps and basins, and the atmosphere within the house becomes contaminated thereby, and engenders disease among the occupants. 'To this erid my improvement consists-First, in the with or water-seal <>,f draiI1 or waste pipe of an enlarged chamber or swpll formed in said pipe downward, beyond the seal thereof, and an air ventilating pipe or c,hamber or swell; second. in the combination with the said tr",p and.enlargedcharriber or swell of a ventilating pipe and a flue or wall v-entilating,passage"with which said air-pipe is connected, Whereby the sewer gases are carried off from tbe dtaitYot'wKste 'Pipe,'1IJld raconstaht supply of air furnishedthei"eto; .third, ina new, !\l'ticl,e of manufact\1re, consisting of a sippontrap, 00:, water seal, enlarged fJJ:!amber orswell,arrangedat,orrieartM eductioll terminal thereof, and adapted for connection to a ventilating pipe. whereby said chamber or swell may be oonstantlysupplied with air."
The third claim of the patent is as follows: "(3) The improved water trap or seal herein described, consisting of the pipe,B, and the enlarged chamtubular limbs, b, b l , b2, ber or swell. C. formed indne piece therewith. and<adapted for connection to a ventilating pipe, substantially as described, and for the purpose set forth." The bill charges an infringement of the third clairii of said patent, and it appears in the evidence that the defendants manufacture and use a trap orB-shape, constructed with <8. downwardly-flaring vent, arranged directly over the inverted curve or crown of the trap, having attached thereto, Ii vent-piIJe·. ' Tqis,form ()f construction reslllts in an increase in the siZe of the piPe, {oiming a trap at the crown thereof; and, the ventpipe being coimected therewith, air is thereby readily conveyed into the flaring 'andtberebysiphonic action is prevented,. On behalf of
BAR.GENT II. BARRY.
84:9
complainant, it is claimed that a trap thus constructed performs all the according to complainant's patent, and that functions of a trap it falls literally within the language of the third claim thereof. On behalf of complainant, it is further claimed that he is not limited to any particularform or position of the swell or cbamber, so long as the same is placed on the eduction side of the trap. The evidence shows that before the date of Sargent's invention the use of ventilating pipes connected with the trap was common. Such use appears in the patent issued January 10, 1860, to W. G. Mackay, and in various forms appears in other patents antedating tbat issued to complainant. It also appears in the evidence that it had been the custom to attach the ventilating pipe to the. crown of the trap, but experience had shown that this mode of inserting the ventilation pipe was open to the objection tbat it formed a rough spot, or slight obstruction, at the crown of thfl trap, and tended to interfere with the free passage of the material coming from the closet. It also appears that the use of a chamber greater in diameter than the pipe of the trap into which the eduction end of the trap emptied itself antedated the Sargent patent; different forms thereof appearing in the Schmitz patent, of September 12, 1876, and in the Mackie patent, of March 20, 1877. It was .also well known that the ordinary S and other traps were liable, through siphonic action, to be emptied of the water that should remain therein, and thus the foul air might pass into the house; and various devices were in use to obviate this difficulty. In the Mackie patent it was sought to prevent siphonage by placing above the crown of the trap an air chamber connected with the crown of the trap, and another air chamber which received. the eduction end of the trap, and was c<mnected with the discharge pipe. When, therefore, the complainant entered this field of in;.v6ntion, he was not the first to attempt the prevention of the known defeet of siphonage in water traps by the use of air chambers, nor was he . the first one to in use a vent at the crown of the siphon. As stated .in the specifiGlltiQns, the object of tbe invention "is to prevent the water from from. the seal by siphonic action, as is now frequently the case when th.e pipe is flushed, and the seal. becomes overbalanced by water closElly">filling the trap and drain-pipe below or beyond it. for a. distance greater than the length of the intermediate limb, or the seal,ot said trap." . The difficulty sought tQ be according to tbis statement,is.siphonic action caused by the eduction or discharge end of the trap being so much longer than the induction end the col:umn of water in the former extends so much below the bottom of the water in the trap tbat by its greater weight it runs rapidly out when the closet is flushed, and thus creates siphonic action. Two general modes are resorted to for the prevention of siphonic action: One is to provide for the free access of the air at tbe crown of the siphon; tbe other is to shorten the eduction leg of the trap, so tbat the columl) of water therein does not materially overbalance that in the induction leg. ThecoIIlo.plainant followed the latter mode, as appears from the statement in the specificati()ns,
tbedt'ainor waste pipe, or the terminid oltha trap; 80 as to ,form 1 'chamber or swell, C, I proville the .for, the dQwnward open,-ing bl"ofthe trap, at qr,nearly ona level with the bottom of said trap and so, that a column i>fwater of, sufficienflengthto overQalancethl!seal, accumulate in said, downward opening limb oithe 'trap,' and consequently'no EUphonic actioJi will occur to impair the 'efficiency of the seal,,as will be readily understood from a knOWledge of siphonie action." : words,siph:6nic actionis'to be prevented by keeping the eduction leg of the trap SO short that not-a.ct as a siphon. To do atldyEit notiilter'fere with the proper carrying llway of the material passing thropgh the trap, complainant provides for the discharge of the eductiop. leg of the trap into a chanlber of larger diameter than the trap, and with the air, by ,a ventilating and air pipe,and the, discharge pipe passingirito the sewer., To prevent siphonagl!, the chamber or must be so located that the eduction leg of the trap is not of as compared with the'induction leg, to a siphon. aimed at by complainant was to prevent siphonage by providing'achamber to r0ceive'thedischarge from the eduction'leg of trap,so arranged that the eduction leg would not have siphon19 action. This clearly shown by the statem:¢nt that-.-· . " "Br the drain or waste pipe. or the terminal of the trap. so as to form the chamber or swell, I provide a discharge for the downward opening or ed'uctioh limb, h1, afthe trap at or nearly on a level with the bottom of said trap and its seal, so that acolumnbf water of sllflicient length to overbalance the seal cannot aecumulatein the said downward opening limb of the trap." In the drawings attached to the patent are found a number of different forIns, showing how the invention can be applied; but in them aU ,the chamber or swell is located near the level of the bottom of the seal, . and aU are fOhned to receive the discharge from the 'eduction leg of the trap. In the Sargent combination, therefore, it is c1e8;),' that the chamber or swell, C, isinteridedto form a reception chamber for the purpose of receiving all matter passing through the trap, and 'its location is intended to beatthe end of the eduction leg of the trap. By· connecting therewith tht) 'air pipe or vent, there is insured the presence of air in the chamber 'or swell, which is necessary to complete the breaking of the eductionleg of the trap, and also there is provided ventilatIon, or a meims for the escape9f foul air :through the vent-pipe and 'wall chamber with which it is connected. . The essentials of the combination are a chamber or swell to receive the discharge from the eduction leg 'of the trap, cbnnected with a ventpipe to secure '9.dmissi'on bf aii' to lhechamber; the eduction leg being kept SUfficiently short to' prevent siphonic action. Are' these essentials 'folind in the Barryconstrllction?As already stated, there is found therein a with the crown of the trap by a' flaring connection whicheiJ:larges the pipe at this point; and the contention of 'complainant is that this enlargement is the counterpart of the swell or chamber of his combination. It is not intended, however, in the Barry
EAGLE MANUF'G CO.
v.
MII,LEa.
<!ombination, that this enlargement shall receive the discharge {roin the eduction leg of the. trap, as is its purpose in the Sargent combination, nO:r,infMt, to receive the discharge of the matter passing through the trap. - Its purpose, so far as siphonage is concerned, is to secure free communication of the air to the column of water at the crown of the trap; .apdth!'lless the. enlargement is filled with water, the more certainly will' it prevent siphonic action. The enlargement is not, therefore; inthe discharge from the educticln leg of the trap,nor from the induction leg, but to secure the pressure of the atmosphere upon the column of water at its' highest 'point, where such pressure upon both the induction and eduction legs of the trap. The rounded 'of it to prevent the point of junccurved form of the enlargement is tion acting as an obstX'u¢tionto the, p.assage of the water and other ,matter through the trap.. -SiphOnic action is prevented without receiving into the enlargement any of the content:s of the trap, whereas in the Sl:l.r.., gent combiQatiorithe swell or champer is to receive into it the entire passing through. the trap, and by so doing to shorten the .· · The differences in the location, purpose, and mode, of action of the swell in tlieBiu'rycom'bination, as compared with that of the Sargent such that the former cannot be held to be all infringement patent,. of the latter;snd consequently complainant's bill must,be dismissed at _costs. '
EAG:L11l :MANUF'G
Co. v·. MILLER tI,·al. E. D·. February 21, 18&10.)
,(Oircuit Court, SiD. L PATENTS FOR
INVBNTIONS-INPRINGBHBNT-EVIDBNCB-lHPBoVEHBN'/.' IN PLows. On a bill to restrain the infringement of patents for the raising of plow-beama issued December 16, 1879; and June", 1881',to Edgar A. Wright, it appeared that, prior to the issue of those patents, methods had been devl-sed: fOf t.he same purpose. In one device the spring used to raise the plow-beam exerted 'its greatest e:lfeot when the plows were in the soil, and had a tendenoy to raise the plows when inop. eration. In anoth",r deville the was combined with an ae:tjust"bie draft at·tli.cbmenti so arranged that when in one. position the draft tended toraise the plow was in motion, in anot):ler position tended to force the ploW' downwar<\s, 8ndthe adjusttneI.lt cOuld not be the ploW \Vas in oper-" ation·. In ;the.Wright patent, there 18 a oomb\natlOn of a spring in suoh way.that ill one position Of the'springit aided in keeping t!).e ground, and in the other it aided in raising the ploW-beam. 'Held, that under'th", Wright patent the inventor. was not limited to any special.form of spring, and auY' other devioe whioh oombin,es a sJ{ring with,tbe J.>low-beam in manner as, to perform the funotions of the I!lpnngs shown'in the Wtightpatent is an infringe-, ment of such patent. . I.BAMB-PATENTAJlILITY-AwnoIPA.TION. '.' ,.'., '.' , The fact'that otber inventors were 'working on the aamed,eviCe oovered 1:>Y the patent at the same time, whose applications were not filed until after the' , tbe\yright ll,a,tep,t, d.oe.sn,;>t show suoh an antieipationof .the Wright patent 8llW1IJ \lB'ect its : ' 8.- SAMB.....U 'l'iLI:Ty.l.'hrPROV'EllilENTIN CULTIVA.TORS. ,: , , In lIlJI,;pi<m:tOl'fl;ltrain,the:j;nfrillgement of a patent for-8: device to give a lateral the plows on oUltjvators, thatin a patent had been iuned..fora'l1evice :toH1lIonging two or more piO\ft to a supporting axle or beamb1"