Black v. Thorne

3 F. Cas. 517, 10 Blatchf. 66, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 550, 1872 U.S. App. LEXIS 1185
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedJune 19, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 F. Cas. 517 (Black v. Thorne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Black v. Thorne, 3 F. Cas. 517, 10 Blatchf. 66, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 550, 1872 U.S. App. LEXIS 1185 (circtsdny 1872).

Opinion

BLATCHFOBD, District Judge.

This suit is brought on two patents. The first is a reissued patent, granted to Moses Thompson, March 31st, 1S57, for an “improvement in furnaces for burning wet fuel,” the original patent having been granted to him, as inventor, April 10th, 1855, and reissued to him October 7th, 1856. The application for the original patent was filed November 14th, 1853, the specification having been sworn to November 9th, 1853; and a caveat, describing substantially the invention patented, was filed August 12th, 1853. This patent was extended April 8th, 1869, for seven years from April 10th, 1869, by the commissioner of patents.

The second patent is one granted to the same Moses Thompson, December 15th, 1857, for an “improvement in bagasse furnaces.” The application for this patent was . filed May 13th, 1857, a previous application filed on the same model, in February, 1S57, having been rejected. On an interference declared between the application of Thompson and a patent granted to A. Hager and S. Allyn, for an “improved bagasse furnace,” May 6th, 1856, priority of invention was decided in favor of Thompson, November 30th, 1S57. This interference related to what is the second claim in the patent granted to Thompson, December 15th, 1S57. This patent was, on the 14th of December, 1871, extended for seven years from the 15th of December, 1871, by the commissioner of patents.

The contest between the parties to this suit has been very severe. The suit was brought after the extension of the 1855 pat[519]*519ent, and before tbe extension of tbe 1857 patent. Tbe extension of tbe 1857 patent was strenuously opposed by tbe same parties wbo baye conducted tbe defence of tbis suit, and on substantially tbe same'evidence, on tbe question of tbe novelty of tbe inventions covered by that patent, wbicb is adduced on tbe same question in this suit It appears, from a paper in evidence, that seventeen different persons and firms, including tbe defendants, representing thirty-eight tanneries, including tbe three tanneries involved in this suit, have joined together to resist the claim of tbe plaintiffs under tbe said patents, agreeing to share, pro rata, all legal expenses incurred in defending against said patents. Tbe defence of tbis suit has been conducted under that arrangement.

Tbe answer sets up, that the 1857 reissue of tbe 1855 patent was obtained by Thompson for tbe purpose of further including therein, and did include therein, more than Thompson originally contemplated, specified or showed to be his alleged invention, on tbe apphcation for bis original patent, and matter wbicb he had no right to include and claim therein, and that such reissue is not for tbe same invention as tbe original patent of 1855, but is for inventions and things substantially and materially different. It also sets up, that tbe first claim of such reissue is invalid, because it is indefinite and equivocal, and does not refer to tbe process specified and described in the language preceding said claim. It avers, that tire extension of the 1855 patent was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud, and denies any infringement of either patent. It sets up want of novelty in regard to both patents, and specifies, in respect to each, prior knowledge by nineteen persons, and prior description in eight printed publications, fourteen English patents, and two United States patents. Twenty-six witnesses have been examined on the part of the defendants, and twenty-one on the part of the plaintiffs. Of these, two on each side are chemical experts, Benjamin Silliman and William H. Plumb for the plaintiffs, and Charles F. Chandler and Adolph Faber du Faur for the defendants. The printed case on the part of the plaintiffs covers over six hundred printed pages. That on the part of the defendants covers nearly one thousand printed pages. The direct examination of the plaintiffs’ experts occupied six days, and covers sixty-five printed pages, embracing seventy-six interrogatories. The cross-examination of those experts occupied twenty-five days, and covers two hundred and seventy-two printed pages, embracing six hundred and five interrogatories. The direct examination of the defendants’ expert Du Faur occupied six days, and covers fifty-six printed pages, embracing one hundred and fifteen interrogatories. The. cross-examination of the same expert occupied seven days, and covers sixty-seven printed pages, embracing three hundred and thirty-one interrogatories. The direct examination of the defendants’ expert Chandler covers fifteen printed pages, embracing thirty-two interrogatories. He was not cross-examined. These observations are made for the purpose of showing how thorough has been the investigation of the questions at issue.

The title of the reissued patent of 1857 is, “an improvement in furnaces for burning wet fuel.” The specification states the invention to be one of “improvements in burning tan-bark, bagasse, sawdust, and other-kinds of fuel, in a wet state, for the purpose of creating heat to generate steam, or to be employed in heating or drying opera.-tions.” Bagasse is crushed sugar-cane. There are two figures of drawings accompanying the specification. One is a horizontal section of a furnace constructed according to the invention. The other is a vertical section of the same. The specification states, that the main object of the invention is, “to effect the more economical use, for fuel, of tan-bark, bagasse, or other trashy matter, in a wet state, or very green or wet wood.” The furnace shown in the drawings has three fire-chambers. The patentee state that he considers three, “in many cases, to be best adapted to practical operation.” He proceeds: “In some cases, two may be sufficient, and, in others, more or less. In making these variations as to the number of chambers, the builder is to be guided by the quantity of heat required, size of chambers and character of fuel to be used. The fire-chambers are of a square, but may be of other form, with grate bottoms, B, B', B", and arched tops, or said tops may be used or built of any other form adapted to the kind of fuel to be used. They are separated by a wall of fire-proof material, and lined throughout with firebrick, and, in case of burning wet tan or bagasse, fire-brick grates should be used. Each burning chamber is provided with a door, C, in front, for the purpose of lighting and tending the fire, and with an opening, D, at the top, for the purpose of supplying the fuel, and with an opening, E, at the back end of the chamber, which leads to the flue, F, or the mixing chamber. The opening may be provided with a damper, If. Each fire-chamber has a separate ash-pit, G, below it, wheh is furnished with a door, H, to regulate the admission of air. The flue or mixing chamber. F, extends across the back of all the three fire-chambers, and the chimney may be at one end, or may be placed in the rear, with a flue, I, leading to it from the flue, F. If the furnace is used for generating steam, the best place for the boilers will be in flue I, which will be made of a proper size to receive and nearly surround it. If used for other purposes, any arrangement may be made best adapted to the application of said heat The thing to be heated ought to be placed a little above the inside top of the [520]*520mixing chambers. The current from the mixing chamber, in passing to the place of use, should descend or pass under a bridge to the place of use, equal to about one-half of the depth of the mixing chamber, then rise to the place of use.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Black v. Thorne
3 F. Cas. 525 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 F. Cas. 517, 10 Blatchf. 66, 5 Fish. Pat. Cas. 550, 1872 U.S. App. LEXIS 1185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-v-thorne-circtsdny-1872.