Chuse v. Ide

• Citation: 89 F. 491
• Decision Date: 03 October 1898
• Docket Number: 487.
• Parties: CHUSE et al. v. IDE et al.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

89 F. 491

CHUSE et al. v. IDE et al.

No. 487.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

October 3, 1898

This appeal is from a decree for an accounting and for an injunction against infringement of claims 1 and 4 of letters patent No. 321,726, claim 3 of letters patent No. 396,209 and claims 2 and 3 of letters patent No. 400,682, all granted to Albert L. Ide, who died pending the suit. The suit was revived and prosecuted to a decree by his executors, the appellees. Patent No. 321,726 was issued on July 7, 1885 and, according to the specification, is for 'improvements in steam engine crosshead lubricators. ' The claims thereof in issue read as follows: '(1) The combination with the crosshead guides and connecting rod of an engine and means for feeding a lubricant to the upper guide, of a crosshead provided with a passage adapted to convey the lubricant from the upper guide to the bearing surfaces of the pivotal joint between the said crosshead and rod, substantially as described.' '(4) The combination, with the crosshead guides and connecting rod of an engine, and means for feeding a lubricant to the upper guide, of a hollow crosshead adapted to receive the end of the connecting rod, and provided with a passage, h', for conveying lubricant from the upper guide to the interior of the crosshead, said connecting rod being provided with a funnel communicating with the bearing surfaces of the pivotal joint between the rod and crosshead, substantially as and for the purpose set forth. ' The elements of claim 1, according to the experts on either side, are: (a) The crosshead guides of an engine; (b) the connecting rod journaled to the crosshead; (c) means for feeding a lubricant to the upper guide; (d) a crosshead provided with a passage adapted to convey the lubricant from the upper guide to the bearing surfaces of the pivotal joint between the crosshead and connecting rod. Claim 4 specifies the same elements, the crosshead being described as hollow, 'adapted to receive the end of the connecting rod, and provided with a passage, h', for conveying lubricant from the upper guide to the interior of the crosshead,' and the connecting rod being provided with a funnel communicating with the bearing surfaces of the pivotal joint between the rod and the crosshead. The prior art supposed to relate more directly to these claims consists of the following letters patent of the United States, bearing various dates from December 11, 1866, to January 20, 1885: No. 60,444, to O. Tufts; No. 69,957, to S. H. Badger; No. 86,214, to I. H. Congdon; No. 112,151, to King & Mulock; No. 264,368, to J. E. Sweet; No. 309,686, to J. B. Bogert; No. 310,979, to J. L. Bogert. Patent No. 396,209 was granted on January 15, 1889, and, as stated in the specification, 'relates to improvements in steam, gas, and other engine frames, and more particularly to frames of that class in which the frame is continuous, and supports the cylinder at one end, and is provided with crank-shaft bearings at its opposite end. ' The claim reads as follows: '(3) An engine frame constructed for the attachment of a cylinder at one end, and having two shaft bearings at its opposite end, 1859; The Batchelder, No. 65,328; the Reynolds & Batchelder, No. 78,895; the Fryer & Hall, No. 158,169; the Westinghouse, No. 246,258; the Brotherhood, No. 299,731, bearing date June 3, 1884; and two British patents, No. 852, issued in 1856 to William Joseph Curtis, and No. 3,522, issued in 1885 to Robert Lauder.

Ephraim Banning and Thomas F. Sheridan, for appellants.

Charles A. Brown, for appellees.

Before WOODS and SHOWALTER, Circuit Judges, and BUNN, District Judge.

WOODS Circuit Judge, after making the foregoing statement, .

There is, to commence with, a dispute whether, by 'means for feeding the lubricant to the upper guide,' as that phrase is used in the claims of patent No. 321,726, is meant the oil cup, L, shown in the drawings and mentioned in the specification. If that cup, or its equivalent, is an essential element of the combination found in the engines made by the appellants. The contention that they are infringers though they do not equip their engines with oil cups, because it is intended that the user shall obtain upon the market the cups for which the engines are adapted, is not tenable, because there is no proof of such intention or practice, and the oil cup described as attached is not essential to the use of the engine. The expert called to make out the complainant's prima facie case testified that the oil cup, L, is the only means shown and described which answers to this requirement of the claims; but in rebuttal the patentee and another expert testified that the cup is not essential, and that the means referred to is to be or may be found in the 'small vertical passage, 1, which is formed through the part of the engine frame forming said guide, and is adapted to permit a slow feed of oil from the reservoir (or cup) to the bearing surface of the upper guide. ' We are of opinion that, when read with reference to the specification and the drawings, the claims include the oil cup as a part, at least, of the 'means for feeding the lubricant,' but prefer not to rest our decision of this part of the case on a narrow question of construction. What is the essential idea or conception of the patent? As stated in the specification: 'The general object of this invention is to provide an improved construction of lubricating devices for the crossheads and crosshead guides of steam engines. * * * The principal features of novelty * * * are embodied in the means shown for lubricating the upper and lower crosshead guides and the bearing surface of the wrist pin, whereby the parts mentioned are all effectively lubricated from a supply of oil initially fed to the upper crosshead guide, and conducted to said several parts, as herein fully set forth. ' The construction and method of operation, in brief, are these: There is, first, a small passage, by which the oil, dropping from a cup or reservoir, reaches the bearing surface of the upper guide. On the upper bearing surface of the crosshead are longitudinal channels, which, during the reciprocating movements of the crosshead, receive oil from the surface of the upper guide, and carry it to the middle of the crosshead, where, through another vertical passage, it flows or drops into the hollow interior of the crosshead, whence, through a funnel, it reaches the wrist pin. In other words, the conception is that oil shall be introduced into an engine, or any other form of machine, through passages, channels, and ducts so located and constructed that by force of gravity it will be carried first to one bearing surface, thence to another, and thence to another, so long as possible and desirable. It would be useless to follow the discussions of the experts. They consist largely in pointing out irrelevant differences of construction between the engines and machinery of the prior art and the engine of the patent. The art of lubrication cannot be limited to a class of engines, or to a species of machines. It embraces all machinery; and when it has been shown, as here, that the method of lubrication described and claimed in this patent has been described in its essential features in numerous earlier patents, and has been employed on engines of earlier construction, it is impossible to concede novelty to claims which show no difference except in the construction of the engine to which the method is applied. Indeed, while the patent professes to be for lubricating devices, the claims are in part for things to be lubricated as well as for the means of lubrication. The engine, with all its parts, is one thing, and, if patentable, should be covered by a distinct mechanical patent. The method of lubricating an engine is quite another thing, and should be so described and claimed, if it is to be protected as an invention. For example, the essential features of claim 1 would be better defined if the claim read in this wise: 'The combination, in an engine, of means for feeding a lubricant to the upper guide for the crosshead and a passage in the...