Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co. v. Municipal Signal Co., 43.

Decision Date11 April 1894
Docket Number43.
Citation61 F. 948
PartiesGAMEWELL FIRE-ALARM TEL. CO. et al. v. MUNICIPAL SIGNAL CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Charles N. Judson, Causten Browne, and Richard N. Dyer, for appellants.

Fish Richardson & Storrow, for appellee.

Before PUTNAM, Circuit Judge, and NELSON and WEBB, District Judges.

NELSON District Judge.

This is a suit brought upon letters patent No. 359,687 and No 359,688, both dated March 22, 1887, granted to Bernice J Noyes, as assignor to the plaintiffs. Infringement is alleged of the first two claims of No. 359,687, and of all the five claims of No. 359,688. Both patents relate to improvements in municipal signal apparatus. The first patent (No. 359,687) describes a municipal signal apparatus, the purposes and objects of which are substantially as follows: As is usual with such mechanism, there is a central station, where messages, alarms, and the like are received, and there are substations in the shape of boxes, located at various points throughout the city or town. From these boxes it is desirable that two classes of alarms shall have the capacity of being sent. One class of alarms is of such a nature that they need immediate attention, and, to draw the attention of the attendant to these alarms, it is arranged that, when such alarms are received, a bell shall be rung, so that the attendant shall see what the want is. The other class of messages consists of those to which no immediate attention need be paid, the record of which merely needing supervision at the end of the day. These objects are carried out by substantially the following mechanism: At the central station there is arranged in one circuit a recorder, the circuit of which is controlled by a relay in the main circuit, which will respond either to a total break in the circuit or to a reduction in the current strength, the relay having a strong retractor, which moves the armature backward, and completes the local circuit of the recorder for all these current changes. Another relay is included in the main circuit, which is not as sensitive, and which responds only to total breaks in the circuit. This relay controls the local circuit, having a bell in it. The operation is as follows: If a message is to be sent which is merely to be recorded, a current is sent over the main line, of reduced strength, and the recorder of the local circuit is operated alone, thus making a record of message, but not ringing the alarm. If it is desired to send from a box a message requiring an alarm, then the circuit is broken in the main line, and both the recording instrument and the bell circuit are operated, and the attendant's attention is immediately called to the fact that an urgent message is being received. Thus, by having two relays differently adjusted to the main line, and a signal box capable of sending either total makes or breaks, or currents of diminished strength, messages can be received on the recorder without ringing an alarm, or they can be accompanied by an alarm, and the character of the message-- whether it requires an alarm or not-- will be determined by the implement used to send in the alarm. The second patent (No 359,688) seeks to accomplish identically the same purpose, but in a different way. Instead of having instruments in the main circuit responsive to changes in the strength of the current in the circuit, it has instruments and connected mechanism responsive to makes and breaks which differ in time. Thus a series of short breaks in the main circuit will act on the recorder, and record a message, without giving any alarm; but, if it is desired to send in an alarm accompanying the message, this is accomplished by a long break, which, by the operation of suitable clockwork, closes the alarm-bell circuit, and calls attention to the fact that a message requiring immediate attention is being recorded. Thus the mechanism of this last patent accomplishes identically the same result as the mechanism of the first patent, by means of long and short breaks, while the first patent accomplishes it by means of breaks and changes of current strength in the circuit.

The principal defense set up in this case is that in view of the state of the art as shown in certain patents which were prior in point of time to the Noyes patent, and in view, also, of the so-called 'Wood Device,' there was nothing patentable in the Noyes apparatus. The first patent relied upon by the defendants is one granted to J. W. Stover, July 26, 1881. That was a patent for improvements in telegraph relays, so that certain signals may be sounded in one relay, and certain other signals coming over the same line may be sounded on another relay,-- one relay operating always; the other operating when the proper current change is sent over the line. The apparatus for accomplishing this result consists of two coils, one about the other, the outer one of which is a primary, and the inner one a secondary, coil, together with two armatures so set that by a change in the current the sounder of one circuit will alone be operated, or the sounders of both circuits will be operated. The patent says:

'A sudden increase or decrease in the strength of the primary current, without actually interrupting it, will set up induced currents in the secondary coil, and operate the polarized armature, and thus signals may be sent through the main circuit, which will be received upon the receiving instrument M, and not upon the receiving instrument m.'

This device plainly differs from the Noyes invention in having two separate and independent receiving instruments. It also lacks a multiple transmitter, which forms a part of the Noyes combination.

The Field patent of June 19, 1883, is also relied on as anticipating the Noyes invention. The scope of this patent is set forth with great clearness in the opinion of the court below. It is for a district telegraph apparatus for recording stock quotations, and is so constructed that the operator may accompany any message with an alarm signal. Two magnets are used, one neutral and the other polarized. The neutral, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • In re Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • April 23, 1896
    ... ... CO. et al. No. 180.United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.April 23, 1896 ... This ... was a suit in equity by the Municipal Signal Company against ... the Gamewell Fire-Alarm Telegraph Company and others for ... alleged infringement of letters patent Nos. 359,687 and ... ...
  • Warren Bros. Co. v. City of Owosso
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • January 13, 1909
    ... ... 93 U.S. 486, 498, 23 L.Ed. 952; Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel ... Co. v. Municipal Signal Co., 61 F ... ...
  • Municipal Signal Co. v. National Electrical Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • November 2, 1899
    ... ... to the validity of No. 359,688. Municipal Signal Co. v ... Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co. (C.C.) 52 F. 464; ... Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co. v. Municipal Signal ... ...
  • American Laundry Machinery Mfg. Co. v. Adams Laundry Machinery Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • May 15, 1908
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT