sJ[Dl: '<:fi',
,lsunjust'lnpJinciple andlnjurlou.s In Its " " "
OQDB. .
And· now, iib,only remains for me to 'as the result of my examina-, tion and study, 'of the proofs bearing upon the questions I have her& that, bwny judgment, the device used by the defendant company,doesnot . infr-inge either the first or second claim of the patent in suit, upon any construction of those claims which is permissible.; and I am further of the 'opinion that said claims are destitute of patentable novelty. end the case, and I am ·thus relieved of the necessity of considering some other questions which the counsel for the respl:''Ctivepmces, discussr.d with so much zeal,and with suc.bsignal ability. Letaldecree be drawn dismisSing the bill of complaint, with
costs.
.GmNNELL t1.
WALwoa'Q:
MANUJ"G
Co.' '
, (circUit Oourt, D. MallBChuletta. AUgu8t·ln,1890."· " ." , ',!. I ': ' " '
P.a....1ft'I 'i'O.,lmlfTlo1'l'..-..NoniIrT-ll'mll.E%Tl1fGl1JSIIBB. I
'. Let1oe1'll 827, 25. lI'rederiok Glinnen, fol''' bnprovemen't iil lI.utomaf.lo ....exthigut8hers. 18 void for want of novelt1. ilinet the aUI'.Ied 'Improvement merely con8ists in applying to an automatic ut.iJlpl.Ue:o · hall been lD Oil hand ;"
In EqiHt '. . ' ". . .' , ;,' ,BfIn)'amijlF.' ThurBthn WilnmrtAH. Thurston, .for complainant.
..
,
,';
,.
l .·'"
",
'
and
Jatna J. ,
jfym, {or defendant.
.1jiis,8uittsbrt>ught for the infringement of lettel'!lpatent 25, 1881, to the complainant, ap inautomatic fire-extinguishers. The specifieationSll)'s:' .' .' '.' '. " '
No.
pipes. which is retained by mt'Rns of'a seaf,!ecured by Ii solder made of a material fusible at a low temper-ature,ad ,tbatby the :*cticm of heat on the solder the seal is released and the pressure,of the water. The invention consists in secur'"ealeda by whieb. the wllter rushing ,I, distributed over alarJte area. as willbt" mor& fUlly Sl',t forth herl'lnafter. "D\strlblitprs f(lr automatic han tieen hl'retoforei provided'Wiih perforations 'through which the water is discharged. Such perforations are liable to become obstructed by sediment It the device, ,is (:oDS'.tltntly tilled with water., ,or they are:. as liable .to ,be obsUucted; more particularly 8.0, in factories wheretbe airis To avoid all these defects and the object of this invention. * * ., Having thus:pe&cribed'Qly,'invention.,I claim as Dewand desire to ,ecureby leUefa,plltent./lo.,anautl)matio,ijre·elttinguisher. the combination. with the outlet, Uliaiqefteot()l1,thceli' in front of, tbe.outlet.and constructed to dlspertle the watel,"9'Ver,ft audalleal. held bya Bolder fuaiWe at a low temperature, as deacrilJed. Of
an I'mproveml'nt hi devices for distrlbut.
591
, · I hllve'Q\1ote4. at length from the,specification oCthe 'patent to MOlf that ,the. Gr;innell ;invention was a very simple one, and that it consisted j,n, substituting a defiector, secured opposite the sealed outlet of the pipe, fota with perforations commonly known as the "rose head.is admitted.,that all the elements,including the.deflector,which make up the oOhe patent,are old. What Grinnell did was to take an old deflector which had been in use, on hand hose, and apply it to an ...e-extinguisher. If hahad been the first to construct the deflectpr it woul«! without question have been an invention. If, to Jnakit · practicallY!,Qperative automaticfire-extinguisher, it had been found , to use. a deflector, and Grinnell had been the first to conceive ',this, there might be gr<>und for sustaining the, But it,ilI admitted that the prior Parmelee Wlla 'operative, and used , At tqostthe only an improveand the improvement consisted in, substituting an Wllicb WlU\ old ,and well known in the an.. ·In patent No. gratlted,toG"cE.Jenks, May26,1874, we find described a detc;) that found in the Grinnell patent. It Was .therettsed with hand hose, or fountain nozzles, but its functions same as when applied to an automatic fir&-extingnililher. Unthe l'9les of law as laid down by the courts in cases of this ter, I must hold theG:rinnell patent void for want of patentable novelty, in view of the prior,state of the aIiat the time of the ,alleged, invention. ' Jenks patent, the, Parmelee. patents, and l ,whole prior art disclosed in the record 'before me, I do not think t4at re,ordinary of mechanicto, pJa('e.a deflector upon a or, in other in doiIlgthiIJI do not think there was any exercise of the" patent laws of the United States. This point seems to me 80 clearly decisive of the case that I do not deem it necessary to consider the other questions raised in defense or to further review the state of the art. Bill dismissed.
as
'.
BULLOCK 11. DREYFUSS.
(C(t'cuit Oourt, & D. New York. Ociober,181!O.) rJ.'I'P'l'I
:t:J'dtlhe In
Claims tand' 228,989, iHued JunelS,t880,to LebbeulLltoreJ'S for, a die of an appropriate configuration to do the wor)c of ornamentation for perforating and scalloping pap"r.orof land t;he papjilr,either o'r botn·...:.were anticipated br George FraIike by the use of a du! of substanand with 1l1mllar, configuration and perforations, and, u· tially the same TeS\ll' of we ,emboaslDr, accomplishing jus' whit la dyu 1»7$1iePA'-
' .
'rhos. H. Wa,gBtajf andJiJo03£ & Coe, for !'omplaii:la.JiL Herbin W. Grindal" for defendant.