(113 Fed. 756.) GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. WEBSTER & D. ST. RY. CO. PATENTS INFRINGEMENT-ARMATURE COILS OR WINDING. The Eickemeyer patent, No. 377,996, for a coil or winding for dynamoelectric machines, describes, in claims 1 and 2, all of the patentee's invention, which consists of an armature coil for drum armatures, having a certain structural form, and a mode of operation by virtue of such form, the essential feature of which is that one side, or substantially one-half of the coil, is of lesser external dimensions than the internal dimensions of the other half, so that the short side of one coil may be passed into or through the long sides of other coils. Claim 4, which is for a winding composed of detachable counterpart coils, while broad in its terms, can only be sustained, in view of the prior art, when limited to the novel form of such coils described in the preceding claims. Claims 1, 2, and 4 considered, and held not infringed. Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. Frederick P. Fish and William K. Richardson (J. L. Stackpole, Jr., on the brief), for General Electric Co. William H. Kenyon (George Harding and Richard Eyre, on the brief), for Webster & Dudley St. Ry. Co. Before COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, and ALDRICH, District Judge. COLT, Circuit Judge. The subject-matter of these cross appeals is the Eickemeyer coil or winding for dynamo-electric machines covered by letters patent No. 377,996, dated February 14, 1888. Claims I, 2, and 4, of the patent are alone in issue; and the only question which arises is whether the defendant's coil infringes any of these claims. The circuit court held that claims 1 and 2 were not infringed, and that claim 4 was infringed. The form of the coil, with its axial line indicated, is illustrated in Fig. 3 of the drawings of the patent. Other coils shown in the drawings have more convolutions of wire, but all have essentially the same configuration. The The two parts of the coil containing the offsets are called the "ends." They are the inactive portions outside of the magnetic field, and they lie alongside of or adjacent to the ends of the armature core. two remaining parts opposite the axial line are called the "sides." They are the active portions, which rest on the periphery of the armature core. It will be noticed that the axial line splits the offsets in the center. It will also be noticed that the coil is divided by its axial line into two unequal halves, and that the relative dimensions of the two halves are such that the smaller half may pass into and through the larger half, or, what is the same thing, the short side through the long side. In describing this structural feature, the patentee uses several synonymous forms of expression: The coil "at one side of what may be termed its axial line is of lesser external dimensions than the internal dimensions of the opposite portion." Again: "Each [coil] having substantially one half thereof of lesser external dimensions than the internal dimensions of the other half." Again: "Thus making one side of the coil longer than the other side, so that the short side of any one coil may be passed into and through the long sides of other coils." Again: "In each coil there is a long side, b, and a short side, b', and in each case the short side can be passed into or through the long side." The claims in issue are as follows: "(1) A dynamo-electric armature coil or winding, which at one side of what may be termed 'its axial line' is of lesser external dimensions than the internal dimensions of the opposite portion, both of said portions being alike in contour, substantially as described. (2) In a dynamo-electric_armaturewinding, a series of coils which are counterparts in contour, each complete and separable from the others, and each having substantially one half thereof of lesser external dimensions than the internal dimensions of the other half, substantially as described, whereby portions of each of said coils overlie and other portions underlie appropriate portions of other coils. (4) In a dynamo-electric armature, a winding composed of detachable counterpart coils, each of which is placed in immediate contact with the periphery of the armature core at one side only, substantially as described." The first claim is for the novel coil. The second claim is for a winding composed of a series of such coils. The fourth claim is for a winding in which the coils are placed in a particular way on the periphery of the armature drum. These claims are carefully drawn. They are expressed in clear and unambiguous terms. The first two define with accuracy and exactness Eickemeyer's main invention. Read in connection with the specification and drawings of the patent, their meaning is plain, unmistakable, and certain. Eickemeyer had a problem to solve, and he solved it, as is common with real inventors, by the application of a simple principle. The problem was the construction of a practical form-wound drum-armature winding for dynamo-electric machines, especially of the bipolar type, composed of detachable, interchangeable, counterpart coils. This problem he solved by the simple method of making the two halves of the coil of such unequal dimensions that the smaller half of one coil may pass into and through the larger halves of other coils. In this conception lay the Eickemeyer invention. Where this construction and mode of opera tion are present, there is present the Eickemeyer invention; and where this construction and mode of operation are absent, the Eickemeyer invention is absent. The lesser external and greater internal dimensions of the two halves of the Eickemeyer coil are made the sole test and criterion of the invention on every page of the drawings and specification of the patent, whether the coil be adapted to bipolar or multipolar machines, or to single or double layer windings. It is the one, fundamental, essential, fixed, and unvarying characteristic of the Eickemeyer coil. The first claim declares that the coil "at one side of what may be termed its 'axial line' is of lesser external dimensions than the internal dimensions of the opposite portion." The second claim declares that each coil has "substantially one half thereof of lesser external dimensions than the internal dimensions of the other half." Taking in the hand an Eickemeyer coil, we see at a glance the lesser external and greater internal dimensions of its two halves. Turning to the drawings of the patent, the same characteristic feature is always apparent. It is also stamped on every page of the specification, as sufficiently appears from the following extracts: "Whether my coils or windings are adapted for use in bipolar or in multipolar machines, they are novel, in that each at one side of what may be termed its axial line' is of lesser external dimensions than the internal dimensions of its opposite portion, and both of said portions are substantially alike in contour, so that they can be symmetrically assembled upon a drum or core, and enable at the ends of said core one portion of each coil to overlie and the other portion to underlie appropriate portions of other coils." "In this armature [referring to Figs. 1 and 2] there are thirty-six counterpart coils, D, of conducting wire, and each coil at one side of its axial line (indicated in dotted lines in Fig. 3) is of lesser external dimensions than the internal dimensions of the opposite portion, and both of said portions are substantially alike in contour, and this characteristic feature is always maintained by me regardless of the number of windings in the coil and of variations in the form of the armature to be covered." "In each coil there is a long side, b, and a short side, b', and in each case the short side can be passed into or through the long side, because for the first time a portion of each coil which is at one side of its axial line is of lesser external dimensions than the internal dimensions of the opposite portion of the coil, although both portions are substantially alike in contour." The inspection of an Eickemeyer coil, the examination of the drawings of the patent, and the reading of the specification, leave no room for doubt as to the meaning of the first two claims, and the novelty and scope of the invention therein described. The patentee expressly declares that his coil is "novel" in that one portion "at one side of what may be termed its 'axial line' is of lesser external dimensions than the internal dimensions of its opposite portion"; that "this characteristic feature is always maintained"; and that "for the first time, a portion of each coil which is at one side of its axial line is of lesser external dimensions than the internal dimensions of the opposite portion of the coil." The defendant's coil, with its axial line corresponding to Fig. 3 of the Eickemeyer patent, is shown in the following cut: It is apparent that the two halves of this coil are equal and its two sides equal, and that consequently one half cannot pass into and through the other half. Manifestly this coil has neither the structural form nor the mode of operation of the Eickemeyer coil. It does not have the lesser external and greater internal dimensions of the two halves, nor the mode of operation whereby the smaller half of one coil may pass into and through the larger halves of other coils. There is absent from this coil the "novel" feature "always maintained" of the Eickemeyer coil, and hence the very essence of the Eickemeyer in vention. To hold that defendant's coil infringes claim 1, we must, by construction, add to the claim the following words: "This claim is not limited to a coil in which one portion at one side of its axial line is of lesser external dimensions than the internal dimensions of the opposite portion, but includes a coil in which one portion, at one side of its axial line, is of the same dimensions as the opposite portion." And to hold that defendant's coil infringes claim 2, we must, by construction, add to the claim the following words: "This claim is not limited to a series of coils 'each baving substantially one half thereof of lesser external dimensions than the internal dimensions of the other half,' but includes a series of coils in which the dimensions of cach half of each coil are the same as the dimensions of the other half." Further, to hold that defendant's coil infringes these claims we must ignore the express language of the specification, wherein the patentee defines the "novel" feature of his coil, and declares that "this characteristic feature is always maintained by me." The most liberal rule of construction known to the patent law will not sanction such an interpretation of the specification and claims of a patent, or such an expansion of the invention. Such a construction and enlargement of the patent are manifestly a contradiction of its specific terms, and an attempt to read into the patent a structure never contemplated by the patentee, and entirely outside of his invention. The complainant seeks to show infringement of these claims by two theories of construction, which are equally untenable. The first may be called the theory of the complainant's experts; and the second, the theory of the complainant's counsel, advanced during their closing argument in this court, and further supported by supplemental briefs. The first theory is founded upon the proposition that the two halves of the defendant's coil are to be measured, not by their own dimensions, but by their position on the armature drum, and that, when so measured, there are found the lesser external and greater internal 51 C.C.A.-29 dimensions of the Eickemeyer patent. Mr. Bentley, complainant's expert, says: "When the coil is in place in the winding, one side lies close along the drum, and the other side is lifted up into an outer layer by means of the offset, to embrace the lower half of the next coil. The elevated half of the coil then has the larger dimensions, and the depressed portion the smaller dimensions, the former being on one side and the latter on the other side of the coil axis." The difficulty with this theory is that it is purely hypothetical. There is no suggestion of any such method of measurement in the Eickemeyer patent, and, consequently, there is no warrant for applying such a method of measurement to defendant's coil. The halves of the Eickemeyer coil are measured by their own dimensions, and not by their dimensions when placed on the armature-core, or their dimensions relative to the axis of such core. The first claim of the patent is for a single coil of the specific form described. The second claim is for a series of these coils, each of the specific form described; and the only question is whether the defendant's coil has substantially the same structural form. We are dealing with the form of specific things, and not with their position relative to something else. We cannot alter the form of a thing by placing it upon another thing. The Eickemeyer coil does not change its form either by laying it on a table or by the collection of a series upon a drum armature. Nor can changes in position alter the relative dimensions of the halves of such coils. They cannot make unequal halves equal, or more equal, or less equal; and the same is true of defendant's coil. Its equal halves remain equal, and it is impossible to make them unequal by mere change of position. The measurement of the two halves of the defendant's coil relative to their positions on the armature is an attempt to prove infringement by an assumed and indefensible method. The adoption of this theory of measurement would make the halves of the Eickemeyer coil equal in some of the various forms of its use described in the patent. This theory illustrates that, as soon as we depart from the plain, simple, and unmistakable description and drawings of the Eickemeyer patent, we become involved in a maze of irrational and contradictory conclusions. The complainant's experts did not find the axial line of the Eickemeyer coil in any other position than as shown in Fig. 3 of the patent, or the axial line of defendant's coil in any other position than as indicated in the cut shown above; the line in each case splitting the offsets of the coils in their center. They undertook, however, to prove that the defendant's coil had, in fact, the unequal halves of the Eickemeyer coil, by measuring those halves with reference to their position on the armature core. This contention may be said to have been substantially abandoned at the argument, and the new theory advanced that the true axial line of the Eickemeyer coil is not the line indicated in Fig. 3, but another line which would include the whole of the offsets in the larger half or portion of the coil, and that the axial line of the defendant's coil is not the line which divides the coil into equal halves, but is a line which includes the whole of the offsets in one half. This theory may be illustrated by the following figures, taken from complainant's supplemental brief: |