Schneider v. Pountney

• Decision Date: 30 August 1884
• Citation: 21 F. 399
• Parties: SCHNEIDER v. POUNTNEY.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

21 F. 399

SCHNEIDER v. POUNTNEY.

United States Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.

August 30, 1884

Livingston Gifford, (with whom was A. Q. Keasbey,) for complainant.

Wetmore & Jenner, for defendant.

NIXON J.

On the third of October, 1876, the United States patent-office issued to one Carl Votti, of Newark, New Jersey, letters patent No. 182,973, for 'improvements in shade-holders for lamps.' The patentee stated in his specifications that his invention consisted in the combination of a shade-holder, made of glass or other transparent material with the cone of the burner of a lamp,-- the two being so constructed as to provide a free access of air outside and inside the cone, in order to produce a brilliant light without the use of a chimney. After a succinct description of the drawings, he states his claim as follows:

'The combination of the shade, C, shade-holder, B, constructed of transparent material, and provided with a downwardly extending socket, c, and dish-shaped flange, d, with the cone, b, having a flange, A, provided with apertures for the admission of air to the outside and inside of the cone; the whole arranged to operate without a chimney, substantially as set forth.'

The attention of the complainants, who had been engaged in the lamp and glass business for upwards of 30 years, was called to the invention in the summer or autumn of 1876. He states that one of his customers brought the illuminator, shade and burner to his notice, and from the moment he saw it he considered it a very valuable improvement, and determined to get the possession and control of the patent. He had an interview with the inventor, purchased the sole right to use the invention, and began at once to have a number of moulds made for the manufacture of glass shade-holders, to be used without a chimney, in combination with lamp burners and shades. The success of the sales of the new product was remarkable. From October 9, 1876, to January 9, 1877, the complainant sold 57,228. During the first year (1877) the sales reached 361,416, and there was a gradual increase from year to year until 1882, when the yearly sales had run up to 602,556.

A few months after the original patent was granted, it was surrendered and a reissue obtained, numbered 7,511, and dated February 13, 1877. It stated that the invention consisted in a transparent shade-holder, or holder of a material allowing the passage of light, and shade or globe, so arranged that an ordinary burner could be used without a chimney. The inventor then made three specific claims, as follows: (1) In a lamp having a burner, the combination of a shade-holder made of a material that will admit of the passage of light, and a shade or globe arranged and constructed substantially as described whereby the burner performs the required functions without the use of a chimney, as set forth; (2) the shade-holder, B constructed of material that will admit of the passage of light, and provided with a downwardly extended socket, c, and dish-shaped flange, d, with rim, E, in combination with a globe or shade, C, and burner, A, of a lamp, as and for the purposes herein set forth; (3) the combination in a lamp of the burner, A, having perforated flange, or globe, C, substantially as and for the purposes herein set forth.

The question of the validity of this reissue was first before Judge BENEDICT in the case of Schneider v. Thill, 5 Ban.&amp A. 565, and afterwards before Judge BLATCHFORD in Schneider v. Lovell, 10 F. 666. Both of these learned judges held the reissue to be invalid, and for substantially the same reason, to-wit, that the specification did not contain the full, clear, and exact description of the invention that the law requires. After these decisions a second reissue was applied for, and secured April 11, 1882, and numbered 10,087. The inventor adds to the drawings of the original patent and the first reissue the drawing of a model which he numbers 3, and which he says corresponds in size, as well as in form and proportions, with the model that was filed with his application for his original letters patent, and further states that the form and proportions of said shade-holder are well adapted for use in carrying out the invention. In this reissue he claims as new: (1) In a lamp, the combination of a kerosene burner with a transparent shade-holder and a shade, the shade-holder being adapted to rest upon the burner in the place adapted for the ordinary chimney, the shade resting on said shade-holder, and being formed so as to converge from its base towards its top, and the shade and shade-holder together constituting the draught-inducing device for the burner, substantially as set forth. (2) The shade-holder, B, constructed of a material that will admit of the passage of light, and provided with a downwardly extending socket, c, and dish-shaped flange, d, with rim, e, in combination with a shade, C, converging from base to top, and the kerosene burner, A, of a lamp, as and for the purpose set forth. (3) The combination in a lamp of the burner, A, having perforated flange, a, and cone, b, the shade-holder, B, and socket, c, and a shade converging from base to top, substantially as and for the purpose herein set forth. (4) The...