Leonard v. Lovell
| Decision Date | 08 December 1886 |
| Citation | 29 F. 310 |
| Parties | LEONARD v. LOVELL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Edward Taggart, for complainant.
Louis S. Lovell and Joyce & Spear, for defendant.
The bill in this cause was filed in behalf of the complainant Leonard, who is the patentee in letters patent No. 261,736 for improvements in the construction of refrigerators. He alleges that the defendant, Lovell, professing to be engaged in the manufacture of refrigerators under letters patent No 295,259, is constructing and selling what is, in substance and effect, an infringement upon the first-mentioned patent and he prays for an injunction, and an accounting. The defendant's answer admits the issuance of the patent to complainant as stated in the bill, and also admits that he the defendant, is manufacturing refrigerators under the Lovell patent, No. 295,259; but he denies that the complainant was the original inventor of the devices claimed to be infringed, denies that they constitute a patentable invention, and designates several prior patents which the defendant insists anticipated the specific features in refrigerators which the complainant claims are covered by his patent.
Testimony has been taken, but the substance of it consists in the specifications, claims, and letters for the Leonard and Lovell refrigerators, and the specifications, claims, and illustrations of the following patents: No. 201,713, to D. S. Stevens, of date March 26, 1878; No. 8,463, reissue to G. F. Smith, October 22, 1878; No. 175,143, to C. B. Page, March 21, 1876; No. 225,595, to Hale & Ramsey, March 16, 1880; No. 222,604, to S. Scott, December 16, 1879; No. 204,216, to R. T. Hambrock, May 28, 1878; No. 62,643, to W. Lane, March 5, 1867; No. 133,147, to J. H. Fisher, November 19, 1872; and No. 207,356, to W. Horn, Jr., and others, August 27, 1878. The application for the Leonard patent was filed June 13, 1882, and that for the Lovell patent, January 23, 1884.
Various claims covered by the complainant's patent, were in the beginning of the present controversy, alleged by him to be infringed by the defendant; but in the end the contest has been brought upon the limits of a single ground, which will be indicated after some preliminary suggestions.
The first and principal inquiry in the case arises out of the claim put forward in defense that the patent of the complainant is void because-- First, the invention is not original; second, it is not patentable for the reason that such invention, so far as the claim alleged to be infringed is concerned, was only that of ordinary mechanical skill, and does not rise to the quality of invention intended to be provided by the patent laws.
Refrigerators of different sorts have been in use for a considerable period, differently classed because constructed upon different principles. The present controversy relates to the class constructed upon the principle of a box or case divided into two main compartments; an upper one for an ice receptacle, and the lower for a chamber in which to store provisions or other materials to be refrigerated, with an opening from the upper or ice compartment downwards into the provisions chamber, and another opening from thence into the upper part of the ice chamber. Thus, by utilizing the natural law that the colder air descends and the warmer rises, a constant circulation is kept up until the ice is dissolved, and the motive power is dissipated. In carrying this principle into execution, the general plan on which prior patents have gone is to create an opening or openings, either by slots covered by projecting shelves or by round apertures protected in the same or some similar way, through the bottom of the ice-box, through which the cold air from the ice descends into the lower chamber, and to construct flues along the outer walls of the refrigerator, from the lower chamber to the upper part of the upper chamber, from which the warm air ascending from the lower chamber is drawn through an opening made for that purpose, again cooled by the ice, and forwarded through the same route in repeated circulation. The several patents issued anterior to either of these in question, and illustrations of which are put in evidence, were designed on this principle, and adopted such a method of construction. In this method the wall of the refrigerator was generally used as one wall of the ascending flue, and either a fixed inner wall or the side of the ice-box served the double purpose of retaining the ice in place, away from the refrigerator wall, and of forming an inner wall for the warm air flue. In some of the patents the inner wall of the flue was not carried to the top of the upper chamber, but a space was left between the top of this inner wall and the top of the box, for the circuit of air above mentioned.
In the case of the Stevens patent, the side of the ice-box constitutes the inner wall of the warm-air flue. The specifications indicate that the ice-box is made so as to be removable, ('detachable' is the term used, but this, I take it, is equivalent to 'removable,') and preferably of open work. This box or cage rests upon the ice-floor, but whether it is removable by lifting out at the top, or drawing out through the door in front, is not quite clear; but I infer the latter, from the use of what are designated 'guide-strips.' In this arrangement the air would be admitted from the flue to the ice at different heights, through the open work of the side of the box, instead of being all admitted through one opening at the top.
Mr. Leonard's patent was designed to cover certain claimed improvements in the construction of the ice-rack, and the cold-air opening below, and its protections; which are features not now material, all controversy about any specific infringement of these having been abandoned. But the patent also covers a claim for an improvement in the construction of the inner wall of the warm-air flue, and which is also the end wall of the ice-box. The particular features is this: The ice-floor being in the usual position, two sets of cleats are attached to the inside of the refrigerator case at each end of the ice-floor, and extending perpendicularly from the ice-floor to the top of the case, and are in pairs. These cleats are arranged by twos, and parallel to each other, but a little distance apart, so as to form a groove. Into these grooves, and from the top, is slid the partition wall, which descends so as to touch the ice-floor, but, being narrower than the height of the chamber, leaves the necessary opening for the warm air to pass over at the top. The advantage claimed is that the wall is thus made 'removable,' whereby cleansing the walls of the flue is facilitated. It is said that at that point the condensation of the warm air is most rapid, and the depositions of impure matter on the walls is greatest.
The Lovell patent is like this in this feature, except that this wall, instead of being run into grooves at the end of it, is attached, at its upper edge, by hinges, to the wall of the case, and, hanging in towards the ice-floor, rests upon the upper edge thereof. So, of course, this partition wall could be lifted in and up, upon its hinges, and its own weight carries it back to its place, so that its lower edge rests upon the end of the ice-floor, as above stated, and it is perforated to permit the passage of air. But this partition is not removable in the sense that it can be taken out of the refrigerator. The defendant, however, uses a different method of construction; and, instead of the hinges and the lateral fall of the partition, he brings the partition to a perpendicular position, from the end of the ice-floor, and runs a rod from front to rear of the refrigerator, a little below the top, to which rod the upper edge of the partition is attached. The lower edge is prevented from going back into the flue by the turning up, like a flange, of the edge of the ice-floor. Thus, it will be seen, the position of the partition is the same as in the complainant's patent, but the attachment is different, and, while it is movable, it is not removable in the sense of being susceptible of being readily taken out. It serves the same purpose, however, in affording facility for cleansing the walls, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial