Albany Steam Trap Co. v. Worthington

• Decision Date: 08 April 1897
• Citation: 79 F. 966
• Parties: ALBANY STEAM TRAP CO. v. WORTHINGTON et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

79 F. 966

ALBANY STEAM TRAP CO. v. WORTHINGTON et al.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 8, 1897

Edward N. Dickerson, for appellant.

M. H Phelps and M. B. Philipp, for appellees.

Before LACOMBE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

The defendants have constructed steam-heating plants, which may be briefly described as consisting of (1) a boiler which supplies steam for an engine, and also for the heating coils the pressure of steam for the latter being reduced (2) by a reduction valve; (3) steam coils or radiators; (4) return pipes from the radiators, which bring back the water of condensation to a closed steam-tight vessel, known as the 'pump governor'; (5) a pump connected with the pump governor, which, when in action, pumps the water of condensation into the boiler; (6) a pipe connection from the boiler supplying live steam to drive the steam pump; (7) a steam valve in this pipe; (8) a device for opening and closing this valve, as the water in the pump governor rises or falls, such device being a float operating the valve by resting on the surface of the water. When the water in the pump governor rises to a predetermined level, the float descends, the valve is closed and pumping ceases. It is not disputed that except in one particular everything found in defendants' plant antedates the patent in suit, being found in what is known as the 'Syracuse Plant.' The one point of difference is that in the Syracuse Plant the pump was started and stopped by the operator, who turned the steam on or off, being apprised when to do so by a water gauge on the vessel which held the water of condensation. The steam valve of the pump, therefore, was not operated by a float or other automatic device, as it is in defendants' system. We do not understand that it is contended that in mechanical details defendants' automatic device infringes the automatic device of the patent. Certainly, if any such contention be made, it is wholly without foundation. Defendants' device, with its float moving the lever which turns the valve, is old and simple, and in no sense the equivalent of the complicated structure of the patent. The contention of complainant seems to be that infringement may be found in 'any apparatus adapted for use in a closed system (of steam heating) to regulate a pump through the action of the water supplied to the pump,' wherein the rise and fall of the water causes the device to open or shut the valve. What force there is in this contention may be seen by an examination of the patent.

The specification sets forth that the patentee has invented 'a new and useful improvement in pump-regulating valves'; the object of the invention being 'to regulate the action of a boiler-feed pump by means of the quantity of water which is fed to such pump, so that said pump will only operate when supplied with water, and will practically cease to operate when the water supply is stopped.' The invention is then described at great length with references to the drawings. The circuit court thus epitomized the description:

'It comprises two disk-shaped vessels, provided with a spring pressed diaphragm and two concentric pipes, the inner of which is attached to said diaphragm. The return water of condensation enters the larger pipe, and, when it has filled it and the space above the diaphragm, the weight thereof depresses the diaphragm and smaller pipe and a valve rod governing a pump regulating steam valve attached to said pipe, which causes said valve to close, and prevents the steam from operating the pump. Thereafter, the water, continuing to flow, passes into said smaller pipe, and also below said diaphragm, until its upward pressure, plus that of the spring, floats the diaphragm, elevates said smaller pipe, opens the valve, and admits the steam to the pump, which pumps water back to the boiler, and automatically stops when the supply thereof is exhausted.'

We do not find that the specific device above described for automatic regulating a steam valve is anticipated. For aught that appears, it was a patentable novelty. The specifications states that the invention is particularly useful in feeding pumps, which return to steam boilers the water of condensation from heating coils in buildings, dispensing with the attendance of a controlling engineer,...