Demetrius Steward v. American Lava Company No 27 Moritz Kirchberger v. American Lava Company No 28

Citation54 L.Ed. 139,215 U.S. 161,30 S.Ct. 46
Decision Date29 November 1909
Docket Number28,Nos. 27,s. 27
PartiesDEMETRIUS M. STEWARD, Moritz Kirchberger, Benno von Schwarz, R. H. Williams, Administrator of George von Schwarz, Deceased, Philip von Frays, and Henry Iden, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Charles W. Iden, Deceased, Petitioners, v. AMERICAN LAVA COMPANY and Paul J. Kruesi. NO 27. MORITZ KIRCHBERGER, Benno von Schwarz, R. H. Williams, Administrator of George von Schwarz, Deceased, Philip von Frays, and Henry Iden, as Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Charles W. Iden, Deceased, Petitioners, v. AMERICAN LAVA COMPANY and Paul J. Kruesi. NO 28
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Mr. Louis C. Raegener for petitioners.

Messrs. Charles Neave, F. P. Fish, and William G. McKnight for respondents.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

These are bills in equity, brought by the petitioners to restrain the infringement of letters patent No. 589,342, issued to the assignee of Edward J. Dolan, and dated August 31, 1897. The patent was held invalid by the circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit. 84 C. C. A. 157 and 166, 155 Fed. 731 and 740. It had been sustained by the circuit court of appeals for the second circuit (Kirchberger v. American Acetylene Burner Co. 64 C. C. A. 107, 128 Fed. 599), and a writ of certiorari was granted by this court to the first-mentioned circuit court of appeals.

The patent, so far as it comes in question here, is for a tip for acetylene gas burners and for the process of burning acetylene gas in the mode set forth. The court below held that the tip was not new, that the description was too indefinite, that the amended specifications brought in entirely new matter not sworn to, and that the claims for processes, so called, were only claims for the functions of the tip described.

A few words as to the conditions and knowledge at the time of the alleged invention will help to make the discussion plain. Acetylene gas began to be produced on a large scale for commercial purposes about 1895. It is very rich in carbon, and therefore has great illuminating power, but, for the same reason, coupled with the relatively low heat at which it dissociates and sets carbon free, it deposited soot or unconsumed carbon, and soon clogged the burners then in use. It was possible to secure a complete consumption of carbon by means of the wellknown Bunsen burner. This consists of a tube or cylinder pierced on the sides with holes for the admission of the air, into one end of which a fine stream of gas is projected through a minute aperture, and from the other end of which it escapes and then is burned. A high pressure is necessary for the gas in order to prevent its burning back. The ordinary use of the Bunsen burner is to develop heat, and to that end a complete combustion, of course, as desired. But, with an immediately complete combustion, there is little light. The yellow light of candles and gas jets is due to free particles of carbon at a red heat, but not yet combined with oxygen, or, as we commonly say, consumed. On the appearance of acetylene gas, inventors at once sought to apply the principle of the Bunsen burner with such modifications as would produce this result. In doing so, they found it best to use duplex burners,—that is burners the outlets of which were inclined toward each other so that the meeting of the two streams of gas formed a flat flame, and to let in less air.

In this state of things, Dolan filed his application on February 18, 1897. The object was said to be 'to provide a burner the use of which will result in perfect combustion of the gas, and the production of a flame which will afford the greatest possible degree of light from a given amount of gas consumed.' A duplex burner on the Bunsen plan was described, but with no indication of any patentable device. The drawings were merely diagrams, and, with reference to what is to follow, we may mention that two of them show two sets of air holes, one above the other, and that the specification even now expressly allows 'two or more' sets. The claims were rejected on April 6, 1897, and in the same month Dolan changed his attorney. On May 20 a new specification and new claims were filed by the new attorney, but not sworn to by Dolan, and on these, with no material change, the patent was granted. In this specification, as in the former, though in different words, it is said that, 'in order to prevent the deposit of carbon with the burner or at the burner top, and thereby insure a perfect combustion and a smokeless flame at the point where the same is formed, I provide a series of inclined air passages, a, a, which lead into the enlarged passage, E, above the point at which the contracted opening, C, is provided.'1 The inclined air

1 The following are copies of Dolan's Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.

[NOTE: MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE (GRAPHIC OR TABULAR MATERIAL)]

passages are the holes in the sides of the Bunsen burner, E is the cylinder, or tube, and the contracted opening, C, is the point at which the gas enters the tube. This device, and nothing else, is pointed out as the means for preventing the clogging of the tips. A preference is stated for a burner in duplex form.

In the new specification, however, it was said that the operation 'seems to be' that the gas draws in on all sides an envelop of air through the openings a, etc., so far stating the Bunsen principle, but adding that 'the result of this arrangement seems to be to so cool the outside of the flame as to prevent any deposit of carbon at the point of egress.' And another paragraph was as follows: 'The structure of my burner is such that, if all of the burner were cut off in a horizontal plane immediately above the outlet C [the point where the gas enters the upper chamber], the general shape and condition of the flame would not be modified, but, in this case, an immediate combustion would occur at the outlet. Under the conditions of this burner the point where the gas reaches its kindling temperature is carried upward, but the general shape of the escaping gas body is not materially modified.' It was stated earlier that 'the result here accomplished would not be accomplished in an ordinary air-mixing burner, in which the air was mingled generally with the body of the gas,' and that 'in my burner an absolutely unobstructed passage is provided for the escape of the original jet of gas forced by the constricted opening C. By reason of this fact it is substantially necessary to have two jets if a flame of considerable candle power is desired.'

The claims allowed and in controversy here are as follows:

'1. The process of burning acetylene gas, which consists in projecting a small cylinder of gas, in surrounding the same with an envelop of air insufficient to cause combustion of all the gas, and in finally supplying the gas with an additional amount of oxygen by allowing the stream of gas to expand ABOVE THE BURNER TIP INTO CONTACT WITH THe air, thereby burning the same, substantially as described.

'2. The process of burning acetylene gas, which consists in projecting toward each other two cylinders of acetylene gas, in surrounding the same with envelops of air insufficient to produce combustion of all the gas, and in finally causing the cylinders of gas to impinge upon each other, and produce a flat flame, substantially as described.

'3. The combination in an acetylene burner of the block A, having the minute opening C, the cylindrical opening E, opening without obstruction to the atmosphere, and the air passages a, substantially as described.'

The ground upon which these claims are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • Eclipse Mach. Co. v. JH Specialty Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 7 Abril 1933
    ...& Dry Dock Co. (D. C.) 18 F. (2d) 318, 322; Fulton Co. v. Powers Regulator Co. (C. C. A.) 263 F. 578; Stewart v. American Lava Co., 215 U. S. 161, 30 S. Ct. 46, 54 L. Ed. 139. Where the written description is silent regarding some feature, the fullest disclosure of that feature by the drawi......
  • General Electric Co. v. Hygrade Sylvania Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 30 Marzo 1944
    ...claims "are directed to the same general subject matter," in the case of the Meyer patent. Defendant cites Steward v. American Lava Co., 215 U.S. 161, 30 S.Ct. 46, 54 L.Ed. 139, where the Court referred to the fact that the applicant might have found it difficult to take the oath as to the ......
  • American Safety Table Company v. Schreiber
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 19 Junio 1959
    ...where the amended claim depends on entirely new features undisclosed in the original application. Cf. Steward v. American Lava Company, 1909, 215 U.S. 161, 30 S.Ct. 46, 54 L.Ed. 139; Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Metropolitan Electric Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 1923, 290 F. 661; Simpson v. New......
  • National Latex Products Co. v. Sun Rubber Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 10 Marzo 1960
    ...the scope of the application National contends the patent is void for lack of proper attestation. Cf. Steward v. American Lava Company, 215 U.S. 161, 168, 30 S.Ct. 46, 54 L.Ed. 139; Wagenhorst v. Hydraulic Steel Company, 6 Cir., 27 F. 2d The objection as to the violation of Sections 112 and......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT