Kenney Mfg. Co. v. Wells & Newton Co.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1904
• Citation: 135 F. 101
• Parties: KENNEY MFG. CO. v. WELLS & NEWTON CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

135 F. 101

KENNEY MFG. CO. v. WELLS & NEWTON CO.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

December 22, 1904

Frank L. Crawford, for plaintiff.

Edward Rector, for defendant.

WHEELER District Judge.

This suit is brought for alleged infringement of the first two claims of patent No. 371,431, dated October 11, 1887, granted to William S. Cooper, and owned by the plaintiff upon a valve for water-closets, which has a down-projecting flange of a little less diameter at its lower edge than the discharge pipe to restrict the flow as it enters the pipe, and a lessening diameter towards its upper part, permitting an after-flow for sealing the traps. The claims are:

'(1) The combination, in a water-closet supply valve, of a discharge chest, a valve constructed to close the mouth of the chest and having a depending flange or projection somewhat less in size than the said mouth, and means for raising the valve so that the lower end of the flange is above the top of the mouth, whereby when the valve is first opened a full flow of water through the chest is permitted which flow is diminished when in the closing movement of the valve the flange of the same enters the mouth of the discharge chest, the diminished flow continuing during the remainder of the movement, all substantially as specified.

'(2) The combination, in a water-closet supply valve, of a discharge chest. a valve constructed to close the mouth of the chest, and having a depending flange less in size that said mouth, but constructed to enter the same and restrict the flow as the valve commences to close, and means substantially as described, for retarding the closing movement of the valve, all substantially as specified.'

The defenses are anticipation by several prior patents and denial of infringement. There are six of these prior patents-- that to Jones, No. 98,599; to Craigie, No. 126,270; to Moore, No 175,728; to Gale, No. 190,304; to Quinn, No. 205,903; and a German patent to Moller, No. 20,349. These well show a down-projecting flange from the valve, which restricts the flow of water as the valve nears its seat and prevents water hammer; but none of them appears to show such a continuing after-flow provided for by a passage around the flange. This well appears from the testimony of the defendants' expert, Mr. See, at X 2.45, Record, pp. 140.1, where he says, summarily, fol. 563: 'That the earlier patents referred to show devices for...