Smeeth v. Perkins & Co.
Decision Date | 15 September 1903 |
Docket Number | 32. |
Citation | 125 F. 285 |
Parties | SMEETH et al. v. PERKINS & CO., Limited, et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
James I. Kay, for appellants.
Marshall Christy and Wm. L. Pierce, for appellees.
Before ACHESON and DALLAS, Circuit Judges, and KIRKPATRICK, District judge.
This is an appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the complainants' bill in equity, brought for an alleged infringement of letters patent No. 452,618, dated May 19 1891, for an improvement in bosh-plates for furnaces, granted to James Scott, and of which the complainants in the bill became owners.
The specification of the patent states that the 'invention consists of an improvement in the setting of bosh-plates in the wall of a blast furnace and in an improved construction of the bosh-plates themselves'; that therefore, for the purpose of preventing the corrosion and destruction of the walls of a blast furnace, caused by the intense heat in the furnace, 'it has been customary to employ hollow plates built in the furnace wall, and provided with water connections, by which streams of water through the plates may be maintained,' but that in the operation of the furnace these plates frequently crack, and permit the water to leak from them, with injurious effects particularly mentioned that the broken plate must be removed as soon as the leak is ascertained and located, but that a great amount of labor is required to remove it, 'since it necessitates the digging it out from the brickwork of the furnace,' which weakens and injures the furnace structure, with loss of time, etc that heretofore it has been generally supposed that the reason for the breaking of the plates was that they were burned out by the heat of the furnace, and great care has been taken to keep up a constant stream of pure water, and to construct the water passages so that they should not be clogged by sediment, which would render them more liable to be burned'; that the inventor (Scott), however, has 'discovered that the breaking of the plates has been caused not so frequently by burning as by the manner in which they have been set in the furnace wall,' the practice having been to build them directly in the wall, with the bricks bearing on them from above and at the side and in intermediate spaces, so that when the brickwork expands and moves by reason of the heat of the furnace it strains the bosh-plates, and frequently breaks or cracks them. The specification and drawings describe and show the bosh-plates of the patent arranged in several horizontal series around the bosh of the furnace, the plates being made tapering in width and thickness and curved transversely on their upper surfaces so as to have a general wedge shape, and they are set in arched recesses built for their reception in the furnace wall.
The function of the arches, it is stated, is to support the furnace wall over the recesses so that they shall not cave in when the bosh-plates are removed, and so that the plates may be taken out and replaced easily without other rebuilding than luting the intervening space with clay. The boshes, it is said, should be of somewhat less dimensions than the recesses. It is stated that by thus setting the bosh-plates the wall of the furnace may expand and contract freely without crushing the plates and causing them to leak. A number of the plates of each series, it is stated, 'are connected by pipes, 12, the outlet of one being connected with the inlet of the next, as shown in Fig. 2, so that the water may pass in succession through the plates'; and that, when it is desired to remove any of the bosh-plates, its inlet and outlet pipes are uncoupled, and then, because of the tapering shape of the plate, it may be drawn out from its recess. To replace the plate it is set again in its recess, luted with clay, and the water pipes reconnected. It is stated that the facility of removal and replacement of the bosh-plates which this improvement affords is of especial benefit in that it enables a leak to be located in case for any reason one should occur.
After this general description of the invention the specification contains the following clause:
The claims of the patent are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Manhattan General Const Co. v. Helios-Upton Co.
... ... National Cash Register Co. v. American Cash Register ... Co., 53 F. 367, 3 C.C.A. 559; Smeeth v ... Perkins, 125 F. 285, 60 C.C.A. 199; Boyer v. Keller ... Tool Co., 127 F. 130, 62 C.C.A. 244 ... It is ... said, however, that, ... ...
-
Albright v. Langfeld
... ... v. Marcus Prism Co. (C.C.) 110 F. 980; ... Lepper et al. v. Randall, 113 F. 627, 51 C.C.A. 337; ... Hutter v. Broome (C.C.) 114 F. 655; Smeeth v ... Perkins & Co., Ltd., et al., 125 F. 285, 60 C.C.A. 199 ... It is ... claimed, however, by the defendants, that the purse they ... ...
-
De Long Hook & Eye Co. v. Francis Hook & Eye & Fastener Co.
... ... thereby become essential parts of the patent or limitations ... of the claims.-- Smeeth v. Perkins & Co., 125 F ... 285, 60 C.C.A. 199 ... [d] ... (U.S. 1903) The rule applied that the fact that the machine ... of a patent ... ...
-
Delaware Seamless Tube Co. v. Shelby Steel Tube Co.
...Mitchell v. Ewart, 81 F. 390, 26 C.C.A. 443; Thompson v. Second Avenue Traction Co., 93 F. 824, 35 C.C.A. 620; Smeeth v. Perkins & Co., 125 F. 285, 60 C.C.A. 199. See, also, Ives v. Hamilton, 92 U.S. 431, 23 494; Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 97 U.S. 137, 24 L.Ed. 1000; Hoyt v. Horne, 145 U.S.......