Municipal Signal Co. v. Gamewell Fire Alarm Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 August 1892 |
| Docket Number | 2,538. |
| Citation | 52 F. 459 |
| Parties | MUNICIPAL SIGNAL CO. et al. v. GAMEWELL FIRE ALARM TEL. CO. et. al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Fish Richardson & Storrow, for complainants.
Charles N. Judson, for defendants.
This suit and the three following [1] relate to patents covering devices in a municipal signal system. By this apparatus signals are conveyed by electricity to a central station from boxes located at convenient places on the streets. These signals or messages range themselves into two classes,--ordinary or patrol signals, which are sent by policemen on their beats, and emergency or want signals, such as fire-alarm, police, and ambulance calls. Several things are important in the operation of a complete police signal system. Not only must the message be received at the central station, but the time of its reception should be at the same moment recorded. Again, the patrol signals sent in are very numerous, and do not require immediate attention, while the emergency signals are comparatively rare, but call for instant action, and therefore it desirable that these should be distinguished from ordinary calls by the ringing of an alarm, in order to at once arrest the attention of the attendant at the central office. Further, it is important that the signal boxes should operate with speed and certainty, and should be so constructed as to be inaccessible to mischievous persons who might send in false alarms.
The principal parties to this suit are rivals in this line of business. In 1888 the city of Boston, being desirous of adopting an improved system of police signals, advertised for bids, and the complainant and defendant companies were competitors for this contract. The apparatus required by the city embraced the special features already mentioned and the defendant company proposed in their letters and specifications sent to the board of police to furnish such a system. They also constructed a working apparatus, which was on exhibition at their office in Boston. This was seen by Mr Martin, a person of large experience in electrical devices of this class, and he describes the apparatus in detail. One of the board of police also visited the office, and he testifies as to the operation of the system. It is necessary to state these facts to meet the position taken by the defendants respecting the first three cases under consideration, namely that complainants have failed in their proof of a technical infringement. In view of the evidence, however, and in the absence of any evidence contradictory thereto on the part of the defendants, I must hold the proof on this point to be sufficient, and that this defense should not prevail.
The present suit has reference to letters patent No. 178,750, dated June 13, 1876, granted to Henry Ennis, for improvements in telegraphic fire alarms. The patent was duly assigned to James F. Oyster, one of the complainants. The other complainant, the Municipal Signal Company, has an exclusive license under the patent. The invention is for a receiving instrument which simultaneously registers a message, records the time of its reception, and sounds an alarm. It consists of a hammer arm for operating a bell, a pencil for recording a message on a traveling strip of paper, and a pencil for recording the time of day upon the face of a rotating clock dial, all of these parts being connected to the armature of an electro-magnet, so as to be simultaneously actuated. In the operation of the device, when the electric current passes through the magnet, the armature is attracted thereto, and, by reason of connecting arms and pivots, throws upward a pencil, marking the clock dial, and also a perforating pencil, impressing or printing the slip of paper, while, at the same time, the bell-hammer handle is thrown forward, and sounds an alarm. In this way, every time the circuit is closed by the transmitting instrument, an alarm is struck, a mark is made on the dial to indicate the time, and a mark is made on the traveling ribbon corresponding to one of the characters of the 'Morse' or any other known telegraphic alphabet.
The patentee says:
'The various features of my device may be modified, and their arrangement changed, without departing from the spirit of my invention.'
The first claim is the only one in controversy, and it is as follows:
'A telegraphic receiving instrument adapted to register a message and record the time of its reception, substantially as and for the purpose set forth.'
It is admitted that the elements, considered separately, which compose the Ennis machine were old at the time of the Ennis invention; in other words, a contrivance actuated by electricity for marking the time of day on a slip of paper by means of a dial revolved like clock work, a register for recording messages sent by electricity, and a contrivance for sounding an alarm by electricity, were well known in the art at this time. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial