From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Flower v. Detroit

U.S.
May 14, 1888
127 U.S. 563 (1888)

Opinion

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. The decision in Parker Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U.S. 87, applied to this case. 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.

Mr. Edward J. Hill for appellants.

Mr. George L. Roberts for appellees.


IN EQUITY, for the infringement of letters patent. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainants appealed. The case is stated in the opinion.


This is a suit in equity, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, by James Flower, 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 that is to be those others to which my invention relates drawings, forming drawing, which forms a a

. . "To all whom it may concern: "To all whom it may concern: 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 State of New York, have invented State of New York, have invented a new and improved a new and improved hydrant fire-plug; and I do hydrant fire-plug; and I do hereby declare the following hereby declare the following a full, clear and exact a full, clear and exact description thereof, which will description thereof, which will enable skilled in the art enable skilled in the art to make and use the same, reference being had to the accompanying to make and use the same, reference being had to the accompanying part of this specification. part of this specification. This invention relates to This invention relates to

new and improved method of improvements in the construction constructing of 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 In the drawing showing the parts of a according which it is composed and the to my invention; manner of their arrangement the is Fig same lines x x of 1 the line x x Fig. 1 Similar letters of reference indicate corresponding parts My invention consists in the following parts and combinations as hereinafter specified and claimed, wherein the forms may form movable for protecting the tube from dirt, etc having which upon has suitable on or leather shown seen in a the drawing a engaged

fire-plugs or hydrants; fire-plugs or hydrants. , . Figure 1 represents a longitudinal , Figure 1 central section of the represents a longitudinal central hydrant, section of hydrant . Fig. 2, a cross-section of Fig. 2 a cross-section of . through through . . . , A represents the hydrant-tube, A represents the hydrant-tube, from which water is from which water is discharged. discharged. B is the horizontal B is the horizontal section which is connected section which is connected with the `water-main,' and with the water-main, and which the valve-chamber which the valve-chamber. C is a loose casing around C is a loose casing the hydrant-tube, around the hydrant-tube. D . D is the cylinder-valve, is the cylinder-valve, its seat at its lower end, its seat at its lower end, elastic packing, secured elastic packing, in a groove, as at secured in a groove, as . E is a rod, having a screw at . E is a rod, thread on its upper end, by having a screw thread on its which the valve is operated. upper end, by which the valve F is a sleeve-nut with

nut E which engages lifting said rod raising one way it or another or crank, or other suitable device secured screwed as seen in the drawing or its equivalent it which secured screwed shown in detail seen in and at noticed seen This thus securing secures a a f marked f marked g, as seen in the drawing g h is provided upon h is on i i strikes h striking h and seen shown

is operated. F is a sleeve-nut, the screw- on the rod , with the screw and lowering on the rod, and lowering as the nut is turned as the nut is turned. . This nut is turned This nut is turned by a wrench by a wrench on the head G. on the head G. The sleeve-nut is in The sleeve-nut is 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, . J H. J is a yoke, which is attached is a yoke, which is attached to the rod E by a set-screw, to the rod E by a set-screw, , and and is in the is 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 projecting down, by projecting lugs, as lugs, as Fig. 2; it will be Fig. 2. It will be 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. being rotated, a a uniform and perfect uniform and perfect bearing bearing of the valve on its of the valve on its seat, the seat, the packing remaining packing remaining undisturbed. undisturbed. 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, , beneath the D, , which orifice is valve D, which orifice is opened and closed by a valve opened and closed by a valve . . A wing a wing the top the top of this valve. of this valve. As the cylinder-valve D descends As the cylinder-valve D descends, the angular flange on the angular flange on its inside the wing its inside, the wing , raises the valve, as raises the valve, as in

thus allowing and allows down f f k. It will be thus seen K, thus preventing any that no water will be left in retention of water above the the hydrant to freeze in cold freezing level weather A A' m m seen n n shown around n about also o o seen shown drawing drawings It will be observed that the casing C loosely rests upon the main B, or upon a branch projecting upward from the same This casing extends upward enveloping the main portion of the water-pipe A, at least that portion which is subterranean Said casing 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

in the drawing, the drawing, any any water which may remain water which may remain in in the hydrant to escape the hydrant to escape through the orifice and aperture through the orifice and aperture . . The tube is secured to The tube is secured to the horizontal section B by a the horizontal section B by a ring-nut, , which contains ring-nut, , which contains recesses for packing-rings around recesses for packing-rings around the valve, as at . the valve, as at Packing the valve is . Packing the valve secured by another ring-nut is secured by another ring-nut , and also under the end of , and also under the end the tube A, as in the of the tube A, as in the . . P represents the discharge-pipe, P represents the discharge-pipe, with a screw for the attachment with a screw for the attachment of the hose, and a of the hose, and a cap-piece for covering the pipe cap-piece for covering the pipe when the hydrant is not in when the hydrant is not in use. use. . , .

hydrant proper. Sufficient space is left between the bead a and the upper terminus of the casing C to permit of sufficient up-and-down play of the said casing C, for the purpose which will hereafter more fully 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 parts during cold weather by the ground alternately freezing and thawing around the hydrant or plug This process of freezing causes the surrounding earth, by its expansion, to lift or upheave and 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 and down, will accommodate the upheaval of the earth above mentioned, without any liability to derange 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 Having thus described my What is invention as new and

. . , . I claim — , I claim

desire to secure by Letters Patent water In combination with a constructed substantially as hydrant or fire-plug, a detached shown and described, — that is and surrounding casing C to say, with the parts and 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 In combination with a water fire pipe in combination the supply-pipe and specified shown and described The arrangement of the The combination of the parts case hydrant or fire-plug pipe herein supply-pipe casing described specified substantially and shown

— 1. A hydrant or plug, 1. , A B , , . cylinder-valve and 2. a waste- valve connected hydrant or -plug A, and operated B, cylinder-valve substantially as herein . and waste-valve, connected and operated substantially as herein . 2. 3. A, B, valve D, C, A, and stuffing-box H, as B, valve D, , for the purpose ." C, and stuffing-box H, as for the purpose ." 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 C 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

liability 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 and the 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 dismissing the bill, from which the plaintiffs have appealed. Its opinion accompanies the record, and is reported in 22 F. 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 U.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 U.S. 217.) In the present case, 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. Machine Co., 105 U.S. 54.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.


Summaries of

Flower v. Detroit

U.S.
May 14, 1888
127 U.S. 563 (1888)
Case details for

Flower v. Detroit

Case Details

Full title:FLOWER v . DETROIT

Court:U.S.

Date published: May 14, 1888

Citations

127 U.S. 563 (1888)

Citing Cases

U.S. Chemicals Co. v. Carbide Corp.

Powder Co. v. Powder Works, 98 U.S. 126, 138.Parker Whipple Co. v. Yale Clock Co., 123 U.S. 87, 99; Hoskin v.…

Freeman v. Asmus

This case was decided in the Circuit Court, May 14, 1886; and both before and since that there have been…