Flower v. Detroit, 127 U.S. 563 (1888)
Case details
Bluebook Citation
Flower v. Detroit, 127 U.S. 563 (1888)
Full caption
FLOWER v. DETROIT.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
May 14, 1888
FLOWER v. DETROIT.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN.
No. 203. Argued April 3, 1888. — Decided May 14, 1888.
Claim 1 of reissued letters patent No. 6990, granted March 14, 1876, to Thomas R. Bailey, Jr., for an “ improvement in hydrants,” namely, “ In combination with a hydrant or fire-plug, a detached and surrounding casing C, said casing adapted to have an independent up and down motion sufficient to receive the entire movement imparted by the upheaval of the surrounding earth by freezing, without derangement or disturbance of the hydrant or plug proper, substantially as shown,” is invalid, as being an unlawful expansion of the original patent.
The drawing of the original patent was materially altered, and new matter was introduced into the specification of the reissue.
In the present case the reissue was not applied for until nearly eight years after the original patent was granted, and the reissue was taken with the manifest intention of covering, by an enlarged claim, structures which in the meantime had gone into extensive public use, and which were not covered by any claim of the original patent.
Claim 3 of the reissue, namely, “ The combination of the hydrant or fire-plug pipe A, supply pipe B, valve D, casing C, and stuffing-box H, substantially as and for the purpose shown,” is either an unlawful expansion, in regard to the casing, of what is found in the original patent, or, if construed narrowly, in regard to the casing, is anticipated, on the question of novelty.
In equi ty , for the infringement of letters patent. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainants appealed. The case is stated in the opinion.
■JTa Edward J. Hill for appellants.
Mr. George L. Roberts for appellees.
Mr . Just ice Blat chfor d delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit in equity, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, by James p. 564Flower, Thomas Flower, and George Flower, against the City of Detroit, the Fire Commission of the City of Detroit, Benjamin Vernon, president thereof, and the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Detroit, for the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 6990, granted March 14, 1876, on an application filed February 17, 1876, to Thomas R. Bailey, Jr., for an “improvement in hydrants,” the original patent, No. 75,344, having been granted to said Bailey, March 10, 1868. Among the defences set up in the answer, it was alleged that new matter, not constituting any substantial part of the alleged invention upon which the original patent was granted, was introduced into the specification of the reissue, and that the reissue is not for the same invention as the original patent, and is void.
The specifications and claims of the original and of the reissue are here placed side by side in parallel columns, the parts in each which are not found in the other being in italic.
Original. Reissue. “To all whom it may con- “To all whom it may con-
- cern: cern :
Be it known that I, T. R. Be it known that I, T. R. Bailey, Jr., of Lockport, in Bailey, Jr., of Lockport, in the county of Niagara, and the county of Niagara, and Stale of New York, have in- State of New York, have invented a new and improved vented a new and improved hydrant fire-plug; and I do hydrant fire-plug; and I do hereby declare that the follow- hereby declare the following ing1 is a full, clear and exact to he a full, clear and exact description thereof, which will description thereof, which will enable those skilled in the art enable others skilled in the art to which my invention relates
to make and use the same,
to make and use the same,
reference being had to the ac-
reference being had to the ac-
companying dra/wings, form-
companying drawing, which
ing part of this specification.
forms a part of this specification.
This invention relates to
This invention relates to a p. 565new and improved method of constructing fire-plugs or hydrants ; and the invention consists in operating a cylinder-valve in a suitable case, and in the arrangement and combination of parts connected therewith, as hereinafter described.
Figure 1 represents a longitudinal central section of the hydrant, showing the pa/rts of which it is composed and the manner of their arrangement. Fig. 2 is a cross-section of Fig. 1 through the line x x.
Similar letters of reference i/ndicate correspondi/ng parts.
A represents the hydrant-tube, from which the water is discharged. B is the horizontal section which is connected with the i water-main,’ and which forms the valve-chamber.
C is a loose casing around the hydrant-tube, for protecting the tube from dirt, etc. D is the cylinder-valve, which has its seat at its lower end, on elastic or leather packing, secured in a groove, as seen in the drawing at a. E is a rod, having a screw thread on its upper end, by which the valve i/mprovements in the construction of fire-plugs or hydrants.
In the drawing, Figure 1 represents a longitudinal cen tral section of a hydrant ax-cording to my invention •
Fig. 2, a cross-section of the same through lines x x of Fig. 1.
JHy invention consists in the following pa/rts and combinar tions, as hereinafter specified and claimed, wherei/n
A represents the hydrant-tube, from which water is discharged. B is the horizontal section which is connected, with the water-main, and which may form the valve-chamber.
C is a loose movable casing around the hydrant-tube. D is the cylinder-valve, having its seat at its lower end, upon suitable elastic packing, secured in a groove, as shown at a. E is a rod, having a screw thread on its upper end, by which the valve is operated. F is a sleeve-nut engaged with p. 566is operated. F is a sleeve-nut, the screw-mii on the rod E, which engages with the screw lifting and lowering said rod on the rod, raising and lower- as the nut. is turned one wa/y ing it as the nut is turned. or another. This nut is turned This nut is turned by a wrench by a wrench or cra/nk, or other on the head G. suitable derice on the head G.
The sleeve-nut is secured in The sleeve-nut is screwed in the cap of the hydrant by a the cap of the hydrant by a collar, and packing under the collar, and packing under the hollow cylinder stuffing-box hollow cylinder stuffing-box H, as seen in the drawing. J H. J is a yoke, which is at-is a yoke, which is attached tached to the rod E by a set-to the rod E by a set-screw, screw, or its eguiwalenty and it and which is secured in the is screwed in the tube A, and tube A, and prevented from prevented from turning, as it turning, as it moves up and moves up and down, by pro-down, by projecting lugs, as jecting lugs, as shown in detail seen in Fig. 2; and it will be at Fig. 2. It will be noticed seen that the arrangement is that the arrangement is such such that the rod and valve that the rod and valve may may be raised and lowered be raised and lowered without without being rotated. This being rotated, thus securing a secures a uniform and perfect uniform and perfect bearing bearing of the valve on its of the valve on its seat, the seat, the packing a remaining packing a remaining undisundisturbed. turbed.
Provision is made for the Provision is made for the discharge of the waste water discharge of the waste water by an orifice beneath the valve by an orifice, f beneath the D, marked f which orifice is valve D, which orifice is opened and closed by a valve opened and closed by a valve marked g, as seen in the draw- g. A wing h is provided upon ing. h is a wing on the top the top of this valve. of this valve.
As the cylinder-valve D de-
As the cylinder-valve D de-
scends, the angular flange i on
scends the angular flange i on
its inside, striking the wing A,
its inside strikes the wing h
raises the valve, as shown in
and raises the valve, as seen p. 567in the drawing, thus allowing any water which may remain in the hydrant to escape through the orifice/and aperture k. It will be thus seen that no water will he left in the hydrant to freeze in cold weather.
The tube A is secured to the horizontal section B by a ring-nut, m, which contains recesses for packing-rings a-round the valve, as seen at n n. Packing arov/nd the valve is secured bv another ring-nut o, and also under the end of the tube A, as seen in the drawing.
P represents the discharge-pipe, with a screw for the attachment of the hose, and a cap-piece for covering the pipe when the hydrant is not in use.
the drawing, a/nd allows any water which may remain in the hydrant to escape down through the orifice / and aperture K, thus preventing any retention of water above the freezing level.
The tube A' is secured to the horizontal section B by a ring-nut, m, which contains recesses for packing-rings a-round the valve, as shown at n. Packing about the valve is also secured by another ring-nut 6>, and also under the end of the tube A, as shown in the drawings.
P represents the discharge-pipe, with a screw for the attachment of the hose, and a cap-piece for covering the pipe when the hydrant is not in use.
It will be observed that the casing C loosely rests upon the main B, or upon a branch projecting upwa/rd from the same. This casing extends upwa/rd^ enveloping the mai/n portion of the waterpipe A, at least that portion which is subterranean. Said casi/ng extends upwards and fits loosely about the plug or hydrant at the portion A'. Above the upper terminus of the casing C is provided the bead a upon the p. 568hydrant proper. Sufficient space is left between the bead a and the upper termi/nus of the casing C to permit of sufficient up-a/nd-down play of the said casing C, for the purpose which wUl hereafter more fuUy appear. This distance between the bead and casing may be adjusted to any desired distance, thus lengthening or shortening it, by means of its screw attachment at its base.
The main function of the casing C is to prevent derangement of pa/rts during cold weather by the grov/nd alternately freezing and thawing a/round the hydrant or plug. This process offreezing causes the surrounding ea/rth, by its expansion, to lift or upheave, a/nd thus be liable to derange the hydrant or plug. This upheaval or movement is received by the casing C, which, by its capability of sliding loosely up a/nd down, will accommodate the upheaval of the earth above mentioned, without a/ny lability to dera/nge the plug or hydrant. This is the chief function of the casing C, although it likewise serves the purpose of protection to the water-pipe A.
What I claim is —
Having thus described my invention, I claim as new and
desire to secure by Letters Patent —
1. A hydrant or water plug, 1. In combination with a constructed substantially as hydrant orfireplug, a detached shown and described, — that is and surrounding casing C, to say, with the parts A and B said casing adapted to have an connected together, as shown, independent up-and-down motion sufficient to receive the entire movement imparted by the upheaval of the surrounding earth by freezing, without derangement or disturbance of the hydrant or plug proper, substantially as shown.
and with a cylinder-valve and 2. In combination with a a \N‘^e-water valve connected hydrant or jire-plug pipe A, and operated in combination the supplypipe B, and cylinsubstantially as herein speci- der-valve and waste-valve, fied. connected and operated substantially as herein shown and described.
2. The arrangement of the 3. The combination of the parts A, B, valve D, case C, hydrant or fire-plug pipe A, and stuffing-box H, as herein supply-pipe B, valve D, casing described, for the purpose spec- C, and stuffing-box H, subified” stantially as and for the purpose shown.”
The drawings of the original and of the reissue are also here [see next page] placed side by side:
The material difference between the descriptive parts of the two specifications is that, in the reissue, it is stated that the casing 0 is movable, and that sufficient space is left between the bead a upon the hydrant proper, and the upper terminus of the casing C, to permit of sufficient up-and-down play of the casing C to allow it to slide loosely up and down, to accommodate the upward and downward movement of the earth during the process of freezing and thawing, without any p. 570liability to derange the plug or hydrant. The casing could not thus slide loosely up and down, unless sufficient space were left between the bead a and the upper terminus of the casing. No suggestion of such arrangement is found in the specification of the original patent, and the drawing of that patent shows no space between the upper terminus of the casing an p. 571the bead or flange above it. This is new matter introduced into the specification of the reissue, contrary to the express inhibition of § 4916 of the Revised Statutes.
Claim 1 of the reissue is for an invention not indicated or suggested in the original patent, namely, the independent up-and-down motion of the casing. In addition to this, the drawing of the original patent shows a close contact between the top of the casing and the bead or flange above it, so as absolutely to forbid any such independent up-and-down motion of the casing as is covered by the first claim of the reissue, while the drawing, Figure 1, of the reissue, shows a sufficient space between the top of the casing and the bead or flange above it to admit of such independent up-and-down motion.
Issue having been joined, proofs were taken on both sides, and the Circuit Court entered a decree dismissing1 the bill, from which the plaintiffs have appealed. Its opinion accompanies the record, and is reported in 22 Fed. Rep. 292. It held that the reissued patent was invalid, as matter of law, upon a comparison of the original with the reissue. We concur in this view.
It is sought to sustain the validity of the reissue by attempting to show that the model filed in the Patent Office with the original application exhibited the invention covered by the first claim of the reissue. It is doubtful whether that fact is satisfactorily established. But, irrespective of this, the case falls directly within the recent decision of this court in Parker & Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 123 IT. S. 87. It was held in that case, that what was suggested in the original specification, drawings, or patent office model is not to be considered as a part of the invention intended to have been covered by the original patent, unless it can be seen from a comparison of the two patents that the invention which the original patent was intended to cover embraced the things thus suggested or indicated in the original specification, drawings, or patent office model, and unless the original specification indicated that those things were embraced in the invention intended to have been secured by the original patent. (See, also, Hoskin v. Fisher, 125 IT. S. 217.) In the present p. 572case, it cannot be seen from a comparison of the two patents that the original specification indicated that what is covered by the first claim of the reissue was intended to have been secured by the original.
In the present case, also, the reissue was not applied for until nearly eight years after the original patent was granted, and the reissue was taken with the manifest intention of covering, by an enlarged claim, structures which in the meantime had gone into extensive public use, and which were not covered by any claim of the original patent.
Infringement is alleged only of claims 1 and 3 of the reissue. As to the casing C of the third claim, it cannot, any more than the casing C of the first claim, be held to cover a casing which has the independent up-and-down motion referred to. Such casing must be construed to be the casing exhibited in the drawing annexed to the original patent, that is, one in which the up-and-down play is restricted by the overlapping bead or flange. On any other construction, claim 3 is an unlawful expansion, in regard to the casing, of what is found in the original patent. In addition to this, if the casing of claim 3 is only a casing which has no end play, it is anticipated by what is shown in letters patent No. 19,206, granted to Race and Mathews, January 26,1858, which patent was the subject of the decision of this court in Mathews v. hMhachine Co., 105 IT. S. 54.
The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.