Vapor Car Heating Co. v. Gold Car Heating & Lighting Co.
| Decision Date | 06 April 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 225.,225. |
| Citation | 7 F.2d 284 |
| Parties | VAPOR CAR HEATING CO., Inc., et al. v. GOLD CAR HEATING & LIGHTING CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Otto Raymond Barnett, of Chicago, Ill., and Alfred W. Kiddle and Wylie C. Margeson, both of New York City, for appellants.
Redding, Greeley, O'Shea & Campbell, of New York City, and William A. Redding and Arthur C. Fraser, both of New York City, for appellees.
Before ROGERS, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.
The patent in suit is for a method in the art of heating, and was applied for April 25, 1904, and granted May 5, 1908. The object of the invention is said to be to provide a reliable, efficient, and inexpensive method of heating whereby an equable temperature is maintained without necessary waste of energy. Primarily, the invention consists in heating an apartment by means of a heating medium such as steam, which is substantially confined in any suitable radiator, but is also in open communication with the atmosphere with some outlet from the radiator, and which is automatically maintained in its normal condition by a continuous supply from a relatively high pressure main or source of supply; the inflow from such source of supply being automatically regulated by thermostatic condition adjacent to the outlet from the radiator, whereby any suitable thermostatic motor is actuated to operate the valve mechanism located between the heating body and the supply. Railway cars have been steam-heated in three ways — first, the high pressure or train pipe system; second, the low pressure or vapor system; and third, an intermediate pressure system. There is another, called the convertible system or interchangeable system, whereby high or low pressure vapor may be used at will.
There has been very considerable patent litigation between the parties here. Heretofore, the appellant sued the appellee for infringement of patent No. 758,436, which is a patent for a low pressure heating system, alleging that claims 10, 11, and 12 were infringed. The trial court there held the claims void because of the prior art, holding that prior art patents disclosed vapor systems, the apparatus of which anticipates these claims. 296 F. 188. No appeal was taken from the decree entered on May 22, 1920.
The tenth claim of that patent provides:
The bill in the present suit was filed January 12, 1921, and is between the same parties, except that Edward E. Gold has been named as a defendant. The patent No. 758,436, held void in the former suit, is for an apparatus for heating by the vapor system, while the patent in suit is for a method of heating by using the same apparatus. The characteristic of the vapor system is that the high pressure from the train pipe is throttled at the inlet valve so that the pressure in the radiator is practically atmospheric pressure; the same being vapor at a temperature of about 212° F. The outlet from the radiator is free, so that any excess pressure, if it exists, would escape by the drip outlet. The outflowing vapor heats the expansion vessel or thermostat, expansion of which acts through a rod or lever to close the inlet valve. Thus, when the valve is open wide enough to let steam enter the radiator so that hot steam flows out at the outlet, the thermostat is heated and expanded and closes the inlet valve so as to check the inflow of the steam to the radiator. Because the outlet is free, the pressure in the radiator cannot exceed atmospheric pressure or about 212° F. The thermostat used to control the inlet valve is the same thermostat or expansion vessel used in the old automatic traps.
The apparatus patent, No. 758,436, provides for a steam pipe entering a car by a branch pipe which is controlled by an inlet valve, and, passing through the branch, enters the radiator, and the spent steam or condensation flows out through a chamber in which is a thermostatic vessel, and thus through a drip pipe. The heating of the vessel expands it and pushes down the valve stem and closes the valve to or toward its seat, thus throttling the steam. The outlet being open, the pressure in the radiator is substantially atmospheric. Claim 10, referred to above, included a thermostatic device located within said conduit and connected with said valve. The court, in the previous case, decided that the French patent to Cleuet (1887) and the patent to Tuder, No. 618,921, anticipated the basis idea, and the patent to Weber, No. 403,162, showed a thermostat situated in the discharging chamber. These disclosures were held to anticipate the claims of the apparatus patent. Weber patent, No. 403,162, and Heintz patent, No. 777,203, were considered in anticipation of claim 10. The patent in suit was applied for April 25, 1904, one day before the issuance of the apparatus patent, No. 758,436, and therefore, if, as claimed by the appellee, the method patent merely provides for the method or function of the apparatus patent, it prolongs the patent monopoly granted on the vapor system for at least four years.
The earlier patent has been adjudicated void, and it is argued by the appellee that it is res adjudicata as to the method patent. Both patents are based on the drawings of the same mechanism. The drawings show the same construction. The same parts are designated by the same reference number and letters on the drawings. The descriptions of the apparatus are alike; the operation described is the same, although the language differs slightly. They are both concerned with the vapor system of steam heating. The apparatus operates necessarily according to this vapor system. The operation of the apparatus patent is all that is described in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Bldg. Co. v. United States
...v. U. S., 113 U.S. 261, 5 S.Ct. 460, 28 L.Ed. 971; E. Ingraham Co. v. Germanow, 2 Cir., 4 F.2d. 1002; Vapor Car Heating Co. v. Gold Car Heating & Lighting Co., 2 Cir., 7 F.2d 284, 287." This court, consisting of Judges Stone, Walter H. Sanborn, and Munger, said in Roberts Cone Mfg. Co. v. B......
-
EL Bruce Co. v. Bradley Lumber Co.
...function of the machine is entirely independent of any chemical or other similar action." See, also, Vapor Car Heating Company v. Gold Car Heating and Lighting Co., 2 Cir., 7 F.2d 284. The claims of the patent in suit define a combination comprising the steps recited in the claims. It is th......
-
Helene Curtis Industries v. Sales Affiliates
...Rubber Co., 1 Cir., 1933, 67 F.2d 790. 10 See Mills Alloys v. Stoody Co., 9 Cir., 1938, 94 F.2d 413; Vapor Car Heating Co. v. Gold Car Heating & Lighting Co., 2 Cir., 1925, 7 F.2d 284. 11 Kessler v. Eldred, 1907, 206 U.S. 285, 27 S.Ct. 611, 51 L.Ed. 1065; Fretwell v. Gillette Safety Razor C......
-
Mills Alloys v. Stoody Co.
...et seq. This conclusion, we think accords with the view expressed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Vapor Car Heating Co. v. Gold Car Heating & Lighting Co., 7 F.2d 284, 287. The master should have held the claims of the process patent here involved invalid for lack of invention bec......