General Electric Co. v. E.H. Freeman Electric Co.

• Decision Date: 15 May 1911
• Citation: 190 F. 34
• Parties: GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. E. H. FREEMAN ELECTRIC CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

190 F. 34

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. v. E. H. FREEMAN ELECTRIC CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.

May 15, 1911

Samuel Owen Edmonds, for complainant.

Melville Church and D. P. Wolhaupter, for defendant.

CROSSDistrict Judge.

The bill of complaint filed in this cause originally embraced three patents, two of which, however, have been eliminated, leaving for consideration patent No. 665,582, for a lamp socket, issued January 8, 1901, to Howard P. Sargent assignor to the complainant.

Of the 15 claims therein contained, 1, 11, and 15 only are in issue and are as follows:

substantially the character described, the combination with a cap provided with interior retaining means, of an insulating-lining made yieldable so that it ca n be forced over the retaining means, which lining is held thereby in the inter ior of the cap.

'11.In an article of substantially the character described, the combination with a cap of projections extending in the interior thereof, and an insulating-lining adapted to be sprung over said projections, said lining being held by said projections within the cap.

'15.In an article of substantially the character described the combination with a cap, having a hole in its crown for the passage of the wires leading to the lamp, of projections extending in the interior of the cap, and an insulating-lining having a hole registering with the hole in the cap, said lining being held by said projections within the cap.'

The controversy herein is confined to the validity of the patent.No question is made, or could be made, upon the question of infringement, as the defendant's device is in all respects like that of the patent in suit.The invention has to do with the insulation of the cap of an incandescent lamp socket.It does not relate to the socket casing as a whole which consists of an inclosing shell for the socket body and a detachable cap closing the upper end of the shell.Nor does it interfere with or effect the insulating base of the socket, but its function is confined, as already stated, to insulating the cap of the shell in what is claimed to be a cheap, effective and durable manner.The patentee describes his patent as follows:

'A lining A of insulating material, such as ordinary insulating-fibre, and having an opening F registering with the opening in the cap, is interposed between the metallic cap B and the upper portion of the insulating base of the socket to prevent current from flowing from any of the interior contacts or wires to and through the metallic cap, whereby danger of fire or of persons receiving shocks therefrom is avoided.The use of this lining A does not interfere in any manner with the use of the lining of the shell V, well known to those skilled in art.The difficulty of properly securing the lining A in position is due to the fact that ordinary securing means would pass through the cap and lining and would defeat the very object for which the lining is interposed.'

He then described the particular method by which this is accomplished.The problem which confronted Sargent is well stated by complainant's counsel in the following language:

(1)'Within the limited space inclosed by the socket shell must be arranged a block of solid insulation by the peculiar fashioning of which the metallic parts may be insulated both from each other and from the shell.'

(2)'Within that limited space those metallic (and, therefore, conducting) parts must be compactly and permanently mounted and arranged to perform their various functions.'

(3)'Provision must be made for access to the interior of the socket shell to enable the wiremen to properly connect the incoming and outgoing conductors to the screws or binding posts through which current is supplied to the filament, also to make repairs to the snap-switch mechanism by which the current is turned on and off.'

(4)'Under the rules of the fire underwriters, provision must be made, even in these small sockets, when used as pendants, for sufficient open space within the socket-casing for a knot in the insulated conductors to bear the weight of the socket, the lamp, and sometimes the shade-holder and shade.'

(5)'Despite the limitation as to size, the mountings or supports for the various parts must be so strong and durable as to resist comparatively rough usage, which might otherwise result in bringing together parts of opposite polarity, creating an arc, and either shocking the user or possibly setting fire to nearby objects.'

The method described by the patentee in his specification, however, is not the one generally followed in manufacture by the complainant, but which is nevertheless one well within the scope of the claims above set forth.Those claims are broad and general and may not be so limited by other and specific claims as to make the two classes coextensive.Ryder v. Schlichter,126 F. 487, 61 C.C.A. 469.That case was decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals of this circuit, and at page 491 of 126 Fed., page 473 of 61 C.C.A. it uses the following language:

'It is evident that the express terms of the claim do not limit the patentee to a particular device, and therefore the construction adopted by the court below practically rewrote the claim and in effect expunged it from the patent; for to limit it to the one form of structure described in the specification and shown in the drawings necessarily introduced into the claim such modifications of the language used by the inventor as turned it into a substantial, and therefore a superfluous, equivalent of the claims preceding.These three claims are concerned with the particular structure described by the drawings and the specification, and to confine the fourth claim, which is drawn broadly, to such a structure, denies to the claim any effect whatever.This, we think, goes too far.It requires us to suppose that the inventor

...