Jones v. Cyphers
| Decision Date | 24 November 1903 |
| Citation | 126 F. 753 |
| Parties | JONES v. CYPHERS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Claude G. Stephenson, for appellant.
C Schuyler Davis, for appellees.
Before LACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit Judges.
The patent contains 41 claims, of which Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, and 14 only are involved. Briefly stated, the invention disclosed and covered by these claims, as described by complainant's expert, consists of an incubator or brooder in which there are incorporated or assembled a closed chamber having a fresh-air inlet, means for heating the chamber which includes a heating device, and an exit or passage connecting the chamber with the heating device; the combination or organization of the elements recited being such as to produce or cause a positive circulation of air within and through the incubator or brooding chamber, by reason of directing it to the heating device. The first claim may be quoted as fairly representing the subject-matter of the five claims sued upon:
'(1) An incubator or brooder comprising a closed chamber having a fresh-air inlet, means for heating the chamber, including a heating device, and an exit-pipe connecting said chamber with the heating device, whereby, owing to the draft caused by such heating device, a positive circulation of air within the incubator or brooder is produced, substantially in the manner described.'
Two patents were put in evidence by the defendants, about which much testimony has been taken, and upon the bearing of these patents upon the validity of the patent in suit this controversy depends. One of these is No. 101,168, March 22 1870, to G. F. Shulze, for a 'system of heating and ventilating.' The other is No. 504,544, September 5th, to William Vanderheyden, for a sanitary house. The discussion is very much simplified by the concessions which, with commendable frankness, have been made by complainant's expert and counsel. The expert concedes that the heating and ventilating appliances disclosed in these two patents are substantially, in principle and mode of operation, like the corresponding elements of the claims of the Jones patent that they disclose those features of distinction which the board of examiners found novel in the applicant's device as compared with the patents cited by the examiners. These two patents were not cited in the proceedings in the patent office. The concession is broadly stated by the complainant's expert in these words: 'If the Vanderheyden patent is an incubator, no substantial novelty of the claims under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weir Frog Co. v. Porter
... ... Toledo Co., ... 119 F. 885, 56 C.C.A. 415 ... In other Circuit Courts of Appeals: Bettendorf v ... Little, 123 F. 433, 59 C.C.A. 473; Jones v. Cyphers, 126 F ... 753, 62 C.C.A. 21; Voightmann v. Perkinson, 138 F. 56, 70 ... C.C.A. 482; Baker v. Duncombe Co., 146 F. 744, 77 C.C.A. 234; ... ...
-
Sodemann Heat & Power Co. v. Kauffman
... ... That patents not pleaded may be admitted as showing the ... prior art, but cannot be availed of as anticipations, is no ... doubt the law. Jones v. Cyphers, 126 F. 753, 62 ... C.C.A. 21; Morton v. Llewellyn, 164 F. 693, 694, ... 90 C.C.A. 514; United States Consolidated, etc., Co. v ... ...
-
Graham Paper Co. v. International Paper Co.
...state of the prior art and to assist the court in ascertaining the proper scope of the patents in construing the same. Jones v. Cyphers et al. (C. C. A.) 126 F. 753; Sodemann Heat & Power Co. v. Kauffman (C. C. A.) 275 F. 593; Zip Mfg. Co. v. Pusch (C. C. A.) 2 F.(2d) 828; Jorgenson v. Hawk......
-
Turner v. Goldstein
...connection with the cantle." 2 Slawson v. Grand Street, P. P. & F. R. Co., 107 U.S. 649, 652, 2 S.Ct. 663, 27 L. Ed. 576; Jones v. Cyphers, 2 Cir., 126 F. 753, 754, 755; Richards v. Chase Elevator Co., 158 U.S. 299, 301, 15 S.Ct. 831, 39 L. Ed. 991; Dunbar v. Myers, 94 U.S. 187, 24 L.Ed. 34......