Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Union Carbide Co.

• Decision Date: 29 May 1902
• Docket Number: 136.,135
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
• Parties: WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MFG. CO. v. UNION CARBIDE CO. THOMSON-HOUSTON ELECTRIC CO. v. SAME.

117 F. 495

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MFG. CO. v. UNION CARBIDE CO.

THOMSON-HOUSTON ELECTRIC CO. v. SAME.

Nos. 135, 136.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 29, 1902

Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of New York.

A. C Fowler, for appellant.

Thos B. Kerr, for appellees.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and TOWNSEND, Circuit Judges.

TOWNSEND Circuit Judge.

The specification of the Westinghouse patent in suit states its subject-matter as follows:

'The invention relates to the construction of a class of apparatus employed for transforming alternating or intermittent electric currents of any required character into currents differing therefrom in certain characteristics. Such apparatus are usually terms 'induction coils' or 'converters.""'

This apparatus comprises a core of soft iron wound with two coils of insulated copper wire,-- the one a primary coil, which receives and transmits the magnetic current; the other, a secondary coil, which transforms the pressure and quantity of the current according to the purpose for which it is required. The type of transformer here under consideration is known as the 'step-down transformer.' A current of high pressure and small volume transmitted from a distance may, by its use, be transformed to a current of low pressure and large volume, and then adapted for ordinary household uses. The object of the Westinghouse improvement is stated by the patentee as follows:

'The object of this invention is to provide a simple and efficient converter, which will not become overheated when employed for a long time in transforming currents of high electro-motive force, and which will be thoroughly ventilated.'

The patentee primarily proposed to obviate the serious objection of loss of energy by overheating involved in such transformation by separating the plates of the core and the primary and secondary coils from each other, so as to permit of ventilation. This construction adapted for ventilating purposes is covered by the other claims not in suit, and is not involved therein. The particular construction which is the subject of the fourth claim,-- the only one involved herein,-- is suggested as follows:

'It may be preferred in some instances to surround the converter with some oil or paraffin or other suitable material, which will assist in preserving insulation, and will not be injured by heating. This material, when in a liquid form, circulates through the tubes and the intervening spaces of the coils and plates, and preserves the insulation, excludes the moisture, and cools the converter. The entire converter may be sealed into an inclosing case, H, which may or may not contain a nonconducting fluid or a gas.'

Said claim is as follows:

'(4) The combination, substantially as described, of an electric converter constructed with open spaces in its core, an inclosing case, and a nonconducting fluid or gas in said case, adapted to circulate through said spaces and about the converter.'

Complainant contends that this claim covers a transformer whose surfaces are cooled by means of oil circulating through said open spaces in said core and confined in said inclosing case. The first objection raised to this contention is estoppel by reason of proceedings in the patent office. There the patentee, it is true, erased a claim for a combination of a converter and inclosing air-tight case, and a fluid therein, which was identical with the claim in another pending application, and modified his claims for ventilating spaces between the core and the coils. But the claim here in suit was filed with his original application, and it was never canceled or modified. That other combinations originally claimed by him were old appears from the prior art. Converters having open spaces in the core to avoid heating were old. In the Hindley & Buffham patent of 1882 (No. 266,-290), for a generator, is disclosed the arrangement of wires 'whereby openings or spaces are provided for the free circulation of air,' in order 'to overcome in a great degree of the generation of heat'; and the patentees describe the winding of the coils 'in separate groups, so that air can freely circulate through them. And in this patentee's earlier patent, No. 342,553 of 1886, he stated that its object was to 'construct the converter in such manner that there shall be but little loss of energy through heating the iron,' and described a core composed of thin plates 'separated from each other by intervening washers or plates of nonmagnetic material,-- such as vulcanized fiber,-- and an air space may be left, if desirable, between each two plates.' The use of oil or other nonconducting fluid to reduce the conductivity of the wire coils of a dynamo when driven at a high speed and thus reduce the heat is described in the Miller patent, No. 270,457, of 1883.

Defendant's counsel chiefly rely on the Stanley patent, No. 349,612 of 1886, for an induction coil, in which, they say, they 'have the identical combination of the fourth claim of the Westinghouse patent. ' This patent is for a converter. The plates of the core are so stamped as to form interior and exterior teeth. Of the plates the specification says:

'They are placed upon each other, the positions of the teeth coinciding but the are insulated or separated from each other by paper, cloth, asbestus, oil silk, air, or other well-known insulating material, and they are firmly bolted or otherwise secured together.'

The specification further says:

'The coil is preferably protected by being placed within a suitable case consisting of a base, F, to which there is secured a removable cover, F'. In the cover there are preferably formed perforations, f,f.'

Although the drawings do not show open spaces in the core, and defendant's expert assumes that there are no such spaces yet it appears from the foregoing description that the patentee conceived the idea of a separation of the plates either so as to admit air or to provide for the insertion of some fabric for purposes of insulation. The description and drawings of the Stanley patent show a base plate and perforated cover adapted to ventilate the converter and to protect it from physical injury. We have, then, in the prior art every element of the combination claimed, and a physical combination of the same elements, except that the separations in Stanley are not adapted to, and the construction of the inclosing case is prohibitive of, the purposes of the claim in suit. This claim covers such an...