New York Filter Co. v. O.H. Jewell Filter Co.
Decision Date | 09 June 1894 |
Citation | 61 F. 840 |
Parties | NEW YORK FILTER CO. v. O. H. JEWELL FILTER CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Philipp Munson & Phelps, for complainant.
Lysander Hill, for defendants.
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:
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 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-
New York Filter Mfg. Co. v. Jackson
...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 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.
... ... 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.
...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......