New York Filter Co. v. O.H. Jewell Filter Co.

Decision Date09 June 1894
Citation61 F. 840
PartiesNEW YORK FILTER CO. v. O. H. JEWELL FILTER CO. et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Philipp Munson & Phelps, for complainant.

Lysander Hill, for defendants.

SHIPMAN Circuit Judge.

This bill in equity is founded upon the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 293,740, dated February 19, 1884, to Isaiah Smith Hyatt, for an improvement in the art of filtering water. The title to the patent has become vested in the complainant. At and prior to the date of the invention the patentee was connected with a corporation which was endeavoring to introduce to the public filters having a filter bed of sand for the filtration of turbid water, or water which contained suspended impurities. The apparatus was not a success, by reason of its imperfect purification of the water, and the patentee, in his search for an improvement found a remedy which is the subject of the patent in suit and the use of which is not limited to any particular mechanical apparatus. The patentee, in his specification, described his invention as follows:

'The invention relates to improvements in the art of filtration; and it consists in the method hereinafter described of arresting and removing the particles of foreign matter liable to pass through the filter bed with the escaping water during an uninterrupted process of filtration, or one in which a stream of water is passed through a bed of filtering material contained in a filter, the filter being a receptacle containing a bed of filtering material, and having a supply pipe for the introduction of the water and a pipe for its passage therefrom, the said supply pipe having another pipe, through which I introduce into the water, simultaneously with its passage into the filter, a substance-- such as perchloride or persulphate of iron-- for the purpose of sufficiently coagulating the impurities in the water to admit of their arrest by the bed during the passage of the water through the filter. In practicing the invention, some form of mechanical apparatus must be employed; and, while I do not confine myself to any particular construction, I recommend the apparatus described and claimed in letters patent of the United States No. 273,542, granted to John W. Hyatt on the 6th day of March, 1883, which I have used with very satisfactory results.'

It further appears from the specification that the particular apparatus which the patentee recommended to be used with his invention consisted, in general, of an upper and lower compartment, separated by a diaphragm. The lower compartment was provided with a supply pipe and a bed of sand, or other suitable filtering agent. The specification proceeds as follows:

'The supply pipe, F, has connected with it a pipe, O, which will pass from any suitable supply of persulphate of iron or perchloride of iron, or other coagulating agent, which, by preference, will be in solution. The filter bed and the persulphate or perchloride of iron, or other coagulating agent, will meet at the juncture of the pipes, F and O, and then pass into the filter together, with the result that the minute particles of foreign matter in the liquid will be sufficiently coagulated to permit their arrestation by the filtering agent. As I have stated, the proportions or quantities of the coagulating agent cannot be accurately defined. It is only necessary that a sufficient quantity be used to effect that degree of coagulation which will admit of the fine impurities being arrested from the water on its passage through the filter bed during a continuous process. It will be understood that in this process the coarse impurities present in the water may be arrested by the filter bed without coagulation. I may mention, as an illustration, that I have successfully purified the water of the Mississippi river at New Orleans by using about one-eighth of a pound of perchloride of iron, of from 50 degrees to 60 degrees Baume, to a thousand gallons of water. I do not confine myself to the employment of persulphate or perchloride of iron or permanganate of potassa, but make use of any other suitable agent which is capable of coagulating the impurities of the liquid, and preventing their passage through the filter bed. Neither do I limit myself to any particular proportions or quantities of the coagulating agent, as they may be varied according to circumstances and the character of the liquid to be treated. Nor do I confine myself to any particular liquid, although I contemplate chiefly the purification of water in large quantities. It is obvious that, by the use of the uninterrupted process hereinbefore described, I entirely dispense with the employment of settling basins or reservoirs, as now commonly employed.'

The claim is as follows:

'The method hereinbefore described of arresting and removing the impurities from water during an uninterrupted passage of same from a supply pipe into a filtering apparatus, thence through a filter bed contained therein, and out through a delivery pipe leading therefrom, which method consists in introducing into the water, simultaneously with its passage to or into the filter, a substance which will sufficiently coagulate or separate the impurities to facilitate their arrest and removal by the filter bed, thus obviating the necessity of employing settling basins.'

The entire paragraph commencing with the words 'I do not confine myself' was disclaimed by the owner of the patent on July 24, 1889. It had long been known that alum and the salts of alumina and the persalts of iron were coagulants which, when placed in a vessel of turbid or impure water coagulated or collected together the suspended inorganic or organic, but not the dissolved, impurities which are present in turbid water, and caused or assisted in causing, by a process of sedimentation, these suspended impurities to settle upon the bottom of the vessel. Knowledge of this fact has been utilized in a crude way by travelers,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • New York Filter Mfg. Co. v. Jackson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 27 Diciembre 1898
    ...suit of New York Filter Co. v. O. H. Jewell Filter Co., in the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of New York. 61 F. 840; 62 F. 582. It has also been by the United States circuit court of appeals for the Second circuit in an appeal from the decree rendered in the l......
  • New York Filter Mfg. Co. v. Jackson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • 22 Noviembre 1900
    ... ... United States for the Southern district of New York (New ... York Filter Co. v. O. H. Jewell Filter Co., 61 F. 840; ... Id., 62 F. 582), but on appeal of the same case in the ... circuit court of appeals for the Second circuit ... ...
  • New York Filter Mfg. Co. v. Niagara Falls Waterworks Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 29 Diciembre 1896
    ... ... circuit court and by the circuit court of appeals. New ... York Filter Co. v. O. H. Jewell Filter Co., 61 F. 840, ... affirmed Schwarzwalder v. Filter Co., 13 C.C.A. 380, ... 66 F. 152. A motion for leave to amend and introduce new ... ...
  • New York Filter Mfg. Co. v. Niagara Falls Waterworks Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 26 Mayo 1897
    ...by an uninterrupted process of filtration alone, is given in the decision to which reference has been made in the preliminary statement. 61 F. 840; 13 C.C.A. 380, 66 152. The construction which was given by the court of appeals to the claim, and their definition of the invention of Hyatt, a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT