New York Filter Mfg. Co. v. Niagara Falls Waterworks Co.

• Citation: 80 F. 924
• Parties: NEW YORK FILTER MANUF'G CO. v. NIAGARA FALLS WATERWORKS CO.
• Decision Date: 26 May 1897
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

80 F. 924

NEW YORK FILTER MANUF'G CO. v. NIAGARA FALLS WATERWORKS CO.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 26, 1897

John R Bennett and M. H. Phelps, for complainant.

F. P Fish, Frederick H. Betts, and J. E. Hindon Hyde, for defendant.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.

SHIPMAN Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The single claim of the patent in suit is as follows:

'The method hereinbefore described of arresting and removing the impurities from water during an uninterrupted passage of same from a supply pipe into a filtering apparatus, thence through a filter-bed contained therein, and out through a delivery-pipe leading therefrom, which method consists in introducing into the water simultaneously with its passage to or into the filter a substance which will sufficiently coagulate or separate the impurities to facilitate their arrest and removal by the filter-bed, thus obviating the necessity of employing settling-basins.'

The history of the art of purification of water by sedimentation and filtration, and of the different and patented art of purification by an uninterrupted process of filtration alone is given in the decision to which reference has been made in the preliminary statement. 61 F. 840; 13 C.C.A. 380, 66 F. 152. The construction which was given by the court of appeals to the claim, and their definition of the invention of Hyatt, are as follows:

'The patent in suit describes a departure from anything which appears to have been done or known in the prior art, so far as appears by the record. It describes a method for the purification of water by the simultaneous application of a specified coagulant and a process of filtration, the coagulant being applied to or mixed with the water to be filtered substantially at its introduction into the filtering apparatus, and while it is flowing continuously to the filter-bed. By this method the coagulants perform their principal work within the filter-bed itself. By this change in previous processes the patentee not only dispensed with the use of settling-tanks, thus saving the time and expense required in sedimentation processes like that of Spence, but he also dispensed with the additional chemical treatment of the water, and the use of the more complicated apparatus involved in processes like that of Paget. So far as appears, no one had previously discovered that the agglomerating action of the coagulants could be obtained without waiting a considerable time for precipitation, or during the passage of the water through the filtering-bed.'

The defendant's plant is a large one, and, speaking generally, thoroughly and solidly constructed. Its actual rate of flow is 3,600,000 gallons per day. That portion of the plan or method of operation which precedes the delivery of the water into the filter-beds is described by Prof. Main as follows:

'The water enters an intake bay, which is under the floor of the pump room. A dilute solution of alum is forced continuously through a small pipe into the stream of water which is flowing constantly into the open end of the intake main. The end of the alum pipe passes some five or six feet into the intake main, so as to deliver the alum solution well within it. The alum solution is prepared in special tanks, which are shown in the drawing. A small pump, which is kept running at a fixed rate, draws from the alum tanks and delivers the solution as described. The intake main is connected with two basins, which are alike in dimensions and arrangement. Gate valves are provided, so that either one may be cut off for any purpose while the other is kept in operation. When the gates are open, the water in these basins stands at the same level as that in the river. The basins are provided each with three transverse partitions, as shown more clearly in the detailed drawing. The water entering near the bottom passes first over a plank partition, which does not reach to the water level. It then passes downward and under the middle brick partition, through the archway in the bottom. After this it passes upward, and over the last plank partition, and them downward to the suction pipe connected to a large rotary pump, which is driven by an electric motor. This description applies to both basins, as they ar alike, and each is provided with a rotary pump. The rotary pumps deliver the alum-charged water into the supply main, which feeds all the filters simultaneously.'

The combined capacity of these basins is 28,760 gallons, so that as the outflow of the water is about 2,500 gallons per minute, the time required for the passage of a given quantity of water through the basins is about 13 minutes, and the water, as it flows over partitions and through an archway, has little rest. The cost of these basins was $3,500. The patent declared that by the use of the described uninterrupted process the patentee dispensed 'with the employment of settling basins or reservoirs as now commonly employed,' and in the concluding sentences of the decision of the court of appeals it was said that settling-tanks were used in some of the plants of the defendant between the introduction of the coagulant and the filter-bed, and in this plant the method of the complainant was not appropriated. The defendant therefore urges that, inasmuch as these two basins are settling-tanks, it is freed from the charge of infringement. It is obvious that the patentee was referring to the reservoirs or settling-tanks which, in almost every pre-existing system for the purification of water which contained suspended impurities, had played an important part. The only known testimony in the Schwarzwalder Case in regard to the use of settling-tanks by the O. H. Jewell Company was that an hour elapsed in its plants at Columbia, S.C., and Chattanooga between the admission of the alum and the passage of the water to the filter-bed; that at Chattanooga the re-agent was fed into the pumps about half a mile from the filtering-bed, and that at Columbia a large subsidence tank is provided to receive the water before it enters the filters, and that settling-tanks were used at Louisville. The concluding sentences of the opinion were inserted out of caution, so as to show that these tanks, as thus stated and described, and with no more knowledge in regard to them than had been thus scantily given, were not to be included in the finding of infringement. The declaration was not that any basin which may be called a settling-tank could take the system with which it was connected outside the scope of the patent, and it is therefore necessary...