American Stove Co. v. Cleveland Foundry Co.

• Decision Date: 22 January 1908
• Docket Number: 1,717,1,718.
• Citation: 158 F. 978
• Parties: AMERICAN STOVE CO. v. CLEVELAND FOUNDRY CO. et al. DANGLER STOVE & MFG. CO. v. SAME.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

158 F. 978

AMERICAN STOVE CO. v. CLEVELAND FOUNDRY CO. et al.

DANGLER STOVE & MFG. CO. v. SAME.

Nos. 1,717, 1,718.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

January 22, 1908

Philip Mauro, for appellants.

T. W Bakewell, for appellees.

Before LURTON, SEVERENS, and RICHARDS, Circuit Judges.

SEVERENS Circuit Judge.

These causes, being similar in all material facts, were heard together in the court below and here. They were suits brought by separate bills against the defendants therein named respectively, in which the complaint was of the infringement of letters patent No. 475,401, issued to William R. Jeavons May 24, 1892, for improvements in oil burners. The complainant claimed to be the owner of this patent by assignment. The defendants denied the validity of the patent and they also denied infringement. The validity of the patent was denied upon the ground that the supposed invention had been anticipated by certain prior patents. The causes were heard in the court below upon pleadings and proofs, and the court being of opinion that the first claim of the patent was valid and infringed decreed for the complainant in both cases, awarding perpetual injunctions, and damages and profits to be ascertained upon a reference to the master, which was ordered. The defendants in each case thereupon appealed.

This patent was the subject of a former suit which came to this court on an appeal from the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, wherein it had been held void. But we were of the opinion that the first claim thereof was valid and had been infringed. We therefore reversed the decree, and remanded the cause for further proceedings. Cleveland Foundry Co. v. Detroit Vapor Stove Co., 131 F. 853, 68 C.C.A. 233. The fifth claim of the patent was for a process of generating vapor from liquid hydro-carbon and burning it; but that claim was not relied upon, and we expressed no opinion upon that or any other of the claims than the first. The defendants in the cases before us are other persons than the defendant in the former case, and of course are not concluded by the judgment in that case. But it must be expected that we would adhere to our former opinion upon a record substantially the same.

The claim in question, and principally relied upon here, reads as follows:

'A hydro-carbon vapor burner, consisting of a vapor-holder constructed for the free and uniform distribution of the vapor therein by gravity and having a free opening for the escape of vapor, in combination with perforated combustion-walls, having a flame-space between them in communication with the said holder, substantially as described.'

A rude drawing illustrating the invention is shown at page 854 of 131 Fed., page 234 of 68 C.C.A.

Upon the question of the validity of this first claim, the defense that the invention was anticipated is supported by reference to the same patents that were put in evidence for the same purpose in the former case, supplemented by some others, of which a patent to Helme, No. 59,393, granted November 6, 1866, for a hydro-carbon burner, and one to Morrill, No. 55,032, granted in the same year for petroleum stoves, are advanced as being most pertinent. But these latter come no nearer to the Jeavons invention than did those canvassed by us in the former case, and are of no importance, except possibly they may serve as restrictions upon the range of equivalents due to the Jeavons patent, if, indeed, it is entitled to so broad a range as to approach them. We do not consider it worth while to analyze them, though we may refer to them in another place for some particulars. We see no reason for changing our opinion touching the first claim of this patent, either in respect to its validity or its scope. It seems unnecessary to go over in detail the reasons on which our judgment was rested. To sum them up, we held that this claim was too broad if read without qualification; but that in order to save it we might suppose it to refer to the specifications for its interpretation, and being so construed the claim could be held valid for the apparatus described; not that the invention was limited to the exact details of construction, as if there were no equivalents possible, but to those of the kind and character described. We were of opinion that the dominating idea of the invention was to provide means whereby the material employed, whether kerosene or other hydro-carbonaceous liquid, should be vaporized at the place of its entrance into the vapor holder, and thereupon the vapor should flow into and pass around the base of the burner in a trough. The flow of the vapor is induced by the force of gravity, and tends to an even horizontal surface throughout the base of the burner, as does any fluid heavier than air when its way is not obstructed. As the volume of the vapor is increased, its level surface is pressed upward into the combustion chamber as the surface of water in a tube is pressed upward by the pressure of other water let in at the base of the tube by the pressure of a more elevated supply or other kind of force. The theory is that the hydro-carbonaceous fluid is let into the generator drop by drop, and is instantly converted into vapor by the heat of the apparatus, the neat being communicated through the material of the burner from the combustion chamber. This is the mode of operation within the burner after the action of the burner becomes normal. The initial step of 'lighting' it is different, especially when the fluid used is not easily combustible. A small wick, preferably of asbestos, is laid in the bottom of the trough and enough of the fluid is let in to saturate it. Thereupon it is lighted; and the heat generated thereby is communicated to the base of the burner and the walls of the combustion chamber to a degree sufficient of itself to maintain the vaporization of the fluid as the latter comes into the base of the burner. Thereupon the normal process begins, as before explained. What was new in the Jeavons invention, as stated in his first claim, when construed as being for the structure described in his specifications to effect the results stated in the claim, which, as we have said, is the only way in which the claim can be supported, was a construction of the burner which would accomplish such a normal operation as we have described. And as he describes only one organization of means for that purpose, he is restricted to that, or substantially that. The liberality of construction which we think may be given to his claim for the purpose of interpreting it cannot be extended to include all means which might be devised to accomplish even a like result, without such a perversion of the rule applied as would disturb other well-settled doctrines of patent law.

Counsel for the appellee contends that the Jeavons invention was of a primary character, a pioneer in the art, and so is entitled to a broad construction, one as broad as the generality of the language of the claim would include. Evidently this contention is made upon the recognized necessity of construing this claim as covering a wider field than we held in our former opinion it was entitled to, in order to lay the ground for the charge of infringement. It is contended, for instance, that Jeavons was the inventor of wickless burners that is, of burners in which combustion of the vapor occurs at a place remote from that of the vaporization, and so dispenses with the inconveniences which arise from the use of a wick, such as bad odors from its burning, its uncleanliness, its liability to get out of order, and care of management. No doubt if this contention could be maintained it would considerably enlarge the merits of the invention. That Jeavons was not the first to devise a wickless burner is shown by the recitals of former methods in his specifications. ...