Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Christman v. Rumsey.

JOHN CHRISTMAN ET AL.

vs.

JOHN A. RUMSEY ET AL. IN EQUITY.*

The reissued letters patent granted to John Christman, March 24th, 1874. for an "improvement in pump filters," on the surrender of original letters patent granted to him November 28th, 1865, are valid, as respects the first claim.

The decision of the Commissioner of Patents as to the existence of a ground for reissue set forth in 53 of the Act of July 8th, 1870, 16 U. S. Stat. at Large, 205, is conclusive.

The said reissued patent has not new matter introduced into its specification in violation of said § 53; nor is it open to the objection that it is not for the same invention, or for any invention, described in the original specification as the invention of the patentee.

It was lawful, under the decision in The Corn Planter Patent, 23 Wallace, ISI, to reissue said patent with claims to combinations of fewer elements than were contained in the combination claimed in the claim of the original patent, the sub-combinations of the reissue entering into a larger combination claimed in the original.

The claims of said reissued patent, namely, " 1. The combination of a wire gauze, C, with an open grating or guard, A, of sufficient strength for the purpose required, and a point, A', constructed substantially as and for the purposes described. 2. The combination of a grating, A, having apertures through it for the passage of the water to the interior, forming the lower end of a pump tube, with a wire gauze, C, for filtering the water, substantially as described," are claims to combinations and not merely to aggregations of parts.

The question of the infringement of the first claim, considered.

The second claim is void for want of novelty.

The plaintiff was allowed to recover on the first claim, on making, before a decree, a disclaimer as to the second claim, it not appearing that there had been any unreasonable neglect or delay to enter such disclaimer, but, as the disclaimer was not made before the suit was brought, costs to the plaintiff were refused.

(Before BLATCHFORD, J., Northern District of New York, September, 1879.)

* 17 Blatchf. C. C. R., 148.

Christman v. Rumsey.

BLATCHFORD, J.

This suit is brought on reissued letters patent granted to John Christman, March 24th, 1874, for an "improvement in pump filters." The specification says: "In pointed pump tubes heretofore essayed, difficulties have arisen in keeping them free from clogging and rendering them efficient. My invention was made to overcome these difficulties, in which I have fully succeeded. The construction of my apparatus is substantially as follows, referring to the accompanying draw. ing, which is a side elevation of the filtering point made for driving, affixed to the lower end of a pump tube, with the side grating A broken, to show the wire gauze, C. I form an open grating A, of rods of proper sized wire of a convenient length and form, the upper ends of which are permanently affixed to a collar or head piece, B, on which a screw may be cut, to affix it to the lower end of the pump tube, D. This screw may be cut on the inside, as shown by the drawing, or on the outside, as preferred, the joint being made in any well known way. The open grate A extends down cylindrically in the drawing a sufficient distance, and is thence tapered and brought into a solid point, A', as in the drawing; or it may be made rounded or square, so there is a solid, compact end adapted to the purposes intended. Inside. the grating A, I insert another tube, C, made of wire gauze, and covering the spaces between the bars of the grate A, and properly fastened in place, which, I find, makes, in connection with the strong supporting grating, a perfect filter, to be used at the bottom of pump tubes. Where it is required, as in quicksands, etc., there may be a filtering medium put inside the wire gauze, to resist the outside pressure; but, for ordinary cases, no such packing is necessary." The claims of the reissue are as follows: "1. The combination of a wire gauze, C, with an open grating or guard, A, of sufficient strength for the purpose required, and a point, A', constructed substantially as and for the purposes described. combination of a grating, A, having apertures through it for the passage of water to the interior, forming the lower end of a pump tube, with a wire gauze, C, for filtering the water, substantially as described."

2. The

Christman v. Rumsey.

The original letters patent were granted to John Christman, November 28th, 1865, for an "improvement in pump filters." The specification of the original says: "Be it known, that I, John Christman, of the city of Syracuse, N. Y, have invented a new and improved pump filter, and I do hereby declare that the following is a full, clear and exact description of the construction of the same and the form thereof, when complete, reference being had to the annexed drawings making a part of this specification. The letters used represent the same parts wherever they occur. To enable others skilled in the art to make and use my invention, I will proceed to describe the construction of the filter, and its form when complete and ready for use. I use any kind of common wire and arrange sections thereof in a tubular form, A, so that the longitudinal sections a, a, a, a, etc., will form an open grate. The ends of the wire sections designed for the lower part of the filter are welded together in a compact form, which may be round, pointed or square across. The ends of the wire sections designed for the upper part of the filter are made to pass between two shoulders, 6 the inner one and the outer one, forming a part of the round head piece B, thus keeping them in a circular or tubular form, and, to hold the same firmly, the outer shoulder, c, may be soldered down upon the wire sections, and the same thus held securely in their places. The head-piece will be of sufficient length, so that the upper end thereof may receive the cut of a screw, either on the inside or the outside, as may be desirable, as seen at d, to receive the pump tube D. Fitting the inside of the wire tube thus formed I insert another tube, C, made of common wire gauze, and the two thus formed make a strong and perfect filter to be used at the bottom of pump tubes. The tube of wire gauze may, in case there is quicksand, be packed with charcoal or other filtering substances, but, for ordinary use, no such packing would be necessary." The claim of the original patent was this: "A pump filter, composed of the parts A, B and C, substantially as and for the purposes described

It is contended, for the defendants, that the reissue is void. The petition for the reissue sets forth, that, by reason of an

Christman v. Rumsey.

insufficient or defective specification, the original patent is inoperative or invalid, and that such error arose from inadvertence, accident or mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention. This is a ground of reissue set forth in § 53 of the Act of July 8th, 1870, 16 U. S. Stat. at Large, 205. The decision as to the fact so set forth belonged exclusively to the Commissioner of Patents, and his action conclusively established that fact. Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall., 516, 543 to 545; Herring v. Nelson, 14 Blatchf. C. C. R., 293.

It is further contended, that new matter has been introduced into the specification of the reissue, in violation of § 53 of the Act of 1870. It is urged, that the original specification states the invention to be "a new and improved pump-filter," while the reissued specification states the invention to be "an improvement in pump filters;" that the original claims the whole and nothing less, while the reissue makes two claims, neither of which claims the whole or includes the collar or head piece B; and that the first two sentences, above cited, in the reissued specification, are matter. These two sentences cannot properly be called “new matter," within the meaning of the statute. They do not at all relate to the description or operation of the apparatus of the patentee. The difficulties stated to have existed in prior pointed pump tubes may well have been known to the patentee from hearsay, although the first driven-well point he may have seen was his own. Certainly, as the patentee's pump tube is a pointed pump tube, and as it does overcome the difficulties in clogging in such a tube the presumption is that it was made to overcome such difficulties, and, therefore, that such difficulties have been heard of by the patentee.

It is further urged, that the original specification describes the invention as applicable to all pump filters, whether used upon points for driven wells, or upon well tubes used in open wells or cisterns, or streams, while the reissued specification introduces new matter by confining the invention to driven wells only. This is claimed to be shown by the fact that the original states that "the ends of the wire sections designed for the lower part of the filter are welded together in a compact form, which may be round, pointed or square across."'

Christman v. Rumsey.

In the reissue it is stated that the open grating, A, is formed of rods of proper sized wire, of a convenient length and form, the upper ends of which are permanently affixed to a collar or head piece, B, and that the open grate extends down cylindrically a sufficient distance, and is thence tapered and brought into a solid point, A'. The original states that sections of wire are arranged in a tubular form, A, so that the longitudinal sections form an open grate. It is contended, that, as there is no A' in the original drawing, and as A in that drawing includes the whole of the open grate from the welded point to the head piece, B, and as, in the reissue drawing, the cylindrical part is lettered A, and the tapered part is lettered A', the restriction in the reissue, of the grating A to the cylindrical part above the taper, and the lettering A' in the reissue drawing, are new matter not warranted by the original drawing or model. It is contended, that, in this, there is a violation not only of the provision of § 53 of the Act of 1870 in regard to new matter, but a violation of the provision of that section, that, in case of a machine patent, neither the model nor the drawings shall be amended, except each by the other; that a new division or element is made in the drawing, called A'; that the drawing has been amended by dividing the grating into two parts, without any warrant therefor from the model; and that this was a material change, because it was intended to change the original hollow point, as described in the original specification and as shown in the original drawing and by the model, into a solid point, including all of the tapering part as solid matter.

There is no substantial difference between the drawing attached to the original patent and that attached to the reissued patent. The form of the whole structure, as a whole, is the same in each. The forms of the several parts are the same in each. In each, the protecting grating is cylindrical above and then tapers below, in the form of an inverted cone, to a point. In the original drawing the whole grating, from the head piece to the point, is lettered A. In the reissue drawing the cylindrical part of the grating is lettered A, and the tapering part is lettered A'..

It is not perceived that there is any force in these objec

« ПретходнаНастави »