Ansonia Brass Copper Co v. Electrical Supply Co
Decision Date | 14 March 1892 |
Citation | 12 S.Ct. 601,36 L.Ed. 327,144 U.S. 11 |
Parties | ANSONIA BRASS & COPPER CO. v. ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
STATEMENT BY MR. JUSTICE BROWN.
This was a bill in equity for the infringement of letters patent No. 272,660, issued February 20, 1883, to Alfred A. Cowles, for an 'insulated electric conductor.'
In his specification the patentee stated that,
His method of preparing the wire was stated substantially as follows: The wire was first passed through a braiding-machine, and a layer of cotton or other threads braided about it. The covered wire was then passed through a vessel containing paint, preferably white lead or white zinc ground in oil, and mixed with a suitable drier. A second braiding was then applied directly upon the fresh paint. The threads thus braided upon the paint force the paint into the first braided covering, and at the same time the paint oozes through between the threads. In this way the paint was incorporated through out the braided covering, and filled up the pores; and the wire was thus perfectly insulated, and there was no possibility of inflaming the covering. 'With intense heat the threads may char, but they will not burn.'
'If desired,' said he, 'a coat of paint may be applied outside of the outer layer of fibrous material, and this may be colored, so as to be used in distinguishing the wires. It is always preferable to braid the second or subsequent coats upon the paint when fresh; but I do not limit myself in this particular, as the paint may be dried, or partially so, before, the next layer of braiding is applied. Paint might be applied to the wire before the first braiding.
'I claim as my invention:
'(1) The method herein specified of insulating electric conductors and rendering the coating substantially non-combustible, consisting in applying a layer of fibrous material, a layer of paint, and a second layer of fibrous material upon the paint before it dries or sets, substantially as set forth.
'(2) An insulated and non-combustible covering for electric conductors, composed of two or more layers of cotton or similar threads, with paint that intervenes between the layers and fills the interstices of the covering, substantially as set forth.'
Upon a hearing upon pleadings and proofs in the circuit court plaintiff's bill was dismissed, (32 Fed. Rep. 81, and 35 Fed. Rep. 68,) and an appeal taken to this court.
Mr. Justice FIELD, dissenting. 35 Fed. Rep. 68, and 32 Fed. Rep. 81, affirmed.
Joshua Pusey and Chas. E. Mitchell, for appellant.
C. R. Ingersoll and M. W. Seymour, for appellee.
Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The stress of this case in upon the question of patentable novelty. The art of insulating electric wires has been known almost as long as that of conducting electricity for practical purposes by means of wires. Prior to the use of electricity for lighting, however, the feeble character of the currents conveyed upon these wires did not require that the insulating material should be non-combustible, and the skill of the inventor was directed towards a method of insulation which should protect the wire from moisture and other external injury. For this purpose the wires were covered with braid which had been saturated or covered with tar, paraffine, India rubber, gutta-percha, asphaltum, and various substances of like nature, to exclude the action of the water, and afford a proper insulation.
Upon the introduction of electric lighting it was found that this method of insulation, while efficient to protect the wire from external influences, was unable to withstand the intense heat frequently generated in the wire itself by the powerful currents of electricity necessary for illuminating purposes. At first these wires were covered with cotton, which had been saturated in paraffine and other similar substances. The result was that the insulating material was melted, or set on fire, and dropped off the wire while still burning, and became so frequently the cause of conflagrations that the insurance companies declined to issue policies upon buildings in which this method of insulating wires was employed. A new substance was needed, which would not only operate as a non-conductor of electricity, and as a protection against moisture, but which should also be non-combustible.
This material was discovered in ordinary paint. Mr. Cowles was not the first, however, to discover that paint was useful for the purpose of insulating electric wires. In several English patents put in evidence paint is suggested as a proper covering for protective as well as for insulating purposes, in lieu of gutta percha, India rubber, resin, pitch, or other similar substances; but, as a non-combustible insulator was never required for telegraphing purposes, there is no intimation in any of them that it possessed this quality. It had, however, been a matter of common knowledge for many years that paint was practically non-combustible. While the linseed oil in paint is to a certain extent combustible, the carbonate of lead is a material both non-combustible and a non-conductor.
It is clear that none of these English patents can be claimed as anticipations, since they all relate to the protection of land or submarine telegraph cables; and the use of paint, so far...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Hollow Brake-Beam Co. v. Interchangeable Brake-Beam Co.
...... them the patentee, Phillip Hien. He attempted to supply the. acknowledge want, and to this end he devised, ... anticipates nor limits the scope of the patent. Ansonia. Brass & Copper Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 144 U.S. ......
-
Eclipse Mach. Co. v. JH Specialty Mfg. Co.
...Co. v. Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co., 110 U. S. 490, 4 S. Ct. 220, 28 L. Ed. 222, and Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 144 U. S. 11, 12 S. Ct. 601, 36 L. Ed. 327, in support of its contention that the patent is invalid for lack of invention, as a mere double use, an......
-
Borden, Inc. v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation
...if, arguendo, an unexpected result not previously fully appreciated had been observed. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 144 U.S. 11, 18, 12 S.Ct. 601, 604, 36 L.Ed. 327, 329 (1892); Zero Manufacturing Co., supra, 358 F.2d at Preciseness of Description 19. Process patents......
-
International Nickel Company v. Ford Motor Company
...Railroad v. Locomotive Truck Co., 1884, 110 U.S. 490, 494, 4 S.Ct. 220, 28 L.Ed. 222; Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. v. Electrical Supply Co., 1891, 144 U.S. 11, 12 S.Ct. 601, 36 L.Ed. 327; H. K. Regar & Sons v. Scott & Williams, 2 Cir., 1933, 63 F.2d 229, 231. Thus if INCO had done no more tha......