Hale v. World Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 February 1904 |
| Docket Number | 1,238. |
| Citation | 127 F. 964 |
| Parties | HALE v. WORLD MFG. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Alfred H. Hildreth (Parkinson & Richards and Benjamin Phillips, of counsel), for appellant.
Alfred M. Allen, for appellees.
Before LURTON, SEVERENS, and RICHARDS, Circuit Judges.
This was a suit brought for an infringement of letters patent No 634,556, issued to James White Hale, complainant (appellant) for an improvement in water stills for the distillation of water for domestic purposes. The court below dismissed the bill on the ground that the water still manufactured by the defendants (appellees) does not infringe any of the claims of the patent sued on. From this decree the complainant has appealed.
The Hale still is a simple apparatus, designed for domestic use. It may be placed on an ordinary range or stove. It consists of three separable parts-- a boiler, in which the water to be distilled is placed; a collector for collecting the distilled water, which fits on top of the boiler; and a condenser containing cold water for condensing the steam, which fits on top of the collector. The floor of the collector, which is flat in the exhibit shown, thus forms the top of the boiler leaving a space for the steam between the boiler and the floor of the collector, which is bounded on the sides by the walls of the boiler. An aperture is provided in the floor of the collector, through which the steam generated in the boiler passes from the steam space to the condensing chamber. Near the top of the boiler, and opposite the aperture through which the steam passes from the boiler to the condensing chamber, an air inlet is provided, through which, it is claimed, air will be drawn, as distillation progresses, to replace that absorbed by the condensed water. This air, confined in the steam space by the floor of the collector, is required to pass over the entire surface of the boiling water, and mingle directly with the scalding steam, before rising, along with the steam, through the steam passage into the condensing chamber; and in this way, it is claimed, the steam space described acts as a sterilizing chamber, in which the air is sterilized before it is absorbed and aerates the distilled water.
The defendant's still is also composed of three separable parts-- a boiler, a collector, and a condenser, arranged to fit together in the order named. The boiler and condenser are substantially the same as those of the Hale patent, and there is an air inlet in the upper side of the boiler, so as to admit air for purposes of aeration into the steam space above the boiler; but the collector, instead of being a vessel having a floor through which, on the side opposite the air inlet, a steam passage is provided from the boiler to the condenser, is a cylindrical vessel, with a cone-shaped flange on the inside, making a trough or gutter for collecting the distilled water; thus leaving a circular opening, of substantial size, in the middle of the apparatus, for the free passage of the steam from the boiler to the condenser. In other words, the collector has no bottom or floor to serve as the top of a sterilizing chamber, but the steam rises directly from the boiler, through the central opening, into the condensing chamber. There is no attempt to confine the steam between the floor of the collector and the surface of the boiling water, so as to sterilize the air by compelling it to pass over the entire surface of the boiling water and mingle with the scalding steam before rising, through the steam passage, into the condenser. In a sense, the boiling chamber and the condensing chamber constitute one chamber, into which, from the side, the flange or gutter of the collector projects.
The only claims of the Hale patent which it is alleged are infringed are claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Columbus Chain Co. v. Standard Chain Co.
...15 C.C.A. 82; Seabury v. Johnson (C.C.) 76 F. 456; Schrieber & Conchar Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 117 F. 830, 54 C.C.A. 128; Hale v. World Mfg. Co., 127 F. 964, 62 C.C.A. 596. On other hand, it is urged that the space in appellee's punch is nothing more than a continuation of the channel in appella......
-
De Long Hook & Eye Co. v. Francis Hook & Eye & Fastener Co.
...imposes a limitation on the claims of the patent, which are not infringed by a still which is without such chamber.-- Hale v. World Mfg. Co., 127 F. 964, 62 C.C.A. 596. (U.S. 1904) An element of a combination, although not definitely described in the claims, except by reference to the speci......
-
American Stove Co. v. Cleveland Foundry Co.
...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 ... 125; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Superior Drill Co., 115 F ... 886, 896, 53 C.C.A. 36; Hale v. World Mfg. Co., 127 ... F. 964, 967, 62 C.C.A. 596; Muller v. Lodge & Davis ... Machine Tool ... ...
-
Marshall & Stearns Co. v. Murphy Mfg. Co.
... ... Lapham-Dodge Co. v. Severin (C.C.) 40 F. 763; ... Thomas v. Rocker Spring Co., 77 F. 420, 23 C.C.A ... 211; Hale v. World Mfg. Co., 127 F. 964, 62 C.C.A ... 596; Plecker v. Poorman (C.C.) 147 F. 530; ... American Stove Co. v. Cleveland Foundry Co., 158 F ... ...